JR14, LLC v. JetCorp Technical Services, Inc. d/b/a Flying Colours Corp.

Filing 57

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant shall serve a copy of its second motion for settlement 53 , supporting memorandum 54 , and this Memorandum and Order on the third-party defendants in this case by no later than May 1, 20 18. If the third-party defendants wish to file any objection to this motion, they must do so by no later than May 16, 2018, and they are granted leave by the Court to file an objection in this case without further Order of this Court. If third-p arty defendants fail to file a timely objection to defendants motion for settlement, they waive their right to do so in this proceeding. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant must file a certification indicating that it has complied with this Memor andum and Order by no later than May 2, 2018. By that same date, defendant shall either supplement its motion with the authorities requested by the Court or file a memorandum indicating that it has been unable to locate any such authorities. If defendant wishes to withdraw its motion, it shall do so by May 2, 2018, and the parties shall file their dismissal papers by May 4, 2018, or this action will be dismissed with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 4/23/2018. (CAR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JR14, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JETCORP TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.,
d/b/a FLYING COLOURS CORP.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4: 17 CV 1469 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendant’s second “motion for settlement.” [53]. The
Court denied the first motion because defendant provided no legal authority for requesting such
relief. In its second motion, defendant seeks relief under Missouri’s joint tortfeasor statute, Mo.
Rev. Stat. § 537.060. Defendant again asks the Court to enter an Order finding that “the
settlement of this case was just, fair, and reasonable, and entered into in good faith, [and] barring
any present or future third-party claims or cross-claims against Flying Colors for contribution,
equitable indemnity, or implied indemnity.”
Although it appears that the settlement of this case was entered into in good faith,
defendant has provided no legal authority for the Court to enter a blanket order barring any
present or future third-party claims or cross-claims against Flying Colors for contribution,
equitable indemnity, or implied indemnity. In each of the cases cited by defendant, the court was
asked to decide the settling tortfeasors’ release from liability in relation to specifically identified
claims and joint tortfeasors who raised the issue of indemnity or contribution with the Court, and
in the contexts of dismissals or motions for summary judgment. That is not the situation
presented here. Moreover, Missouri’s statute does not bar all types of indemnification claims.

While defendant may certainly be able to use a good faith settlement as a shield to bar joint
tortfeasors from seeking contribution or indemnity, it has provided the Court with no authority
demonstrating that it can enter the type of Order requested here. Moreover, there is no indication
that the joint tortfeasors (Aurum Jets and Primestar Aviation) are even aware of the settlement
and request for settlement approval. If these joint tortfeasors object to such an Order, it appears
that the Illinois judge presiding over plaintiff’s case against those tortfeasors may be the more
appropriate judge to render findings about the nature of the settlement and its effect on any
contribution claims.
The Court will require defendant to serve a copy of its motion and supporting
memorandum, together with a copy of this Memorandum and Order, on third-party defendants
Aurum Jets and Flight Check Business Aviation Servs., Inc. In addition, defendant should
supplement its motion with copies of Missouri cases entering the same kind of Order being
requested here and copies of those Orders. If none exist, defendant is obligated to so inform the
Court. Once the Court receives this additional information, it will then decide whether to set this
motion for hearing. If the defendant cannot provide the Court with any controlling or persuasive
authority as requested, it may choose to withdraw this motion and proceed with the dismissal of
this case in accordance with the March 5, 2018, Order.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant shall serve a copy of its second motion for
settlement [53], supporting memorandum [54], and this Memorandum and Order on the thirdparty defendants in this case by no later than May 1, 2018. If the third-party defendants wish
to file any objection to this motion, they must do so by no later than May 16, 2018, and they
are granted leave by the Court to file an objection in this case without further Order of this

2

Court. If third-party defendants fail to file a timely objection to defendant’s motion for
settlement, they waive their right to do so in this proceeding.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant must file a certification indicating that it
has complied with this Memorandum and Order by no later than May 2, 2018. By that same
date, defendant shall either supplement its motion with the authorities requested by the Court or
file a memorandum indicating that it has been unable to locate any such authorities. If defendant
wishes to withdraw its motion, it shall do so by May 2, 2018, and the parties shall file their
dismissal papers by May 4, 2018, or this action will be dismissed with prejudice.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 23rd day of April, 2018.

3