Siqueiros et al v. Arnold et al

Filing 54

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 53 Unopposed Motion for Good Faith Settlement. The parties shall file a written Joint Status Report by 12/5/2014 outlining the status of the settlement. The requirement that the parties submit a written joint status report will be automatically vacated upon filing of a stipulation dismissing Defendant Arnold from the suit. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 11/7/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

CHRISTOPHER SIQUEIROS, et al.,

7

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,

8

vs.

9

JACK BYBEE ARNOLD, et al.,

10

Defendant.

2:12-cv-01364-JAD-CWH
ORDER

11
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Good Faith Settlement (#53),
12
filed October 22, 2013. The motion is unopposed. See Exhibit 2. Pursuant to Nevada Revised
13
Statute 17.245, Plaintiffs request a finding that the settlement with Defendant Jack Bybee Arnold
14
was entered in good faith.
15
BACKGROUND
16
The parties and Court are familiar with the factual background and legal issues involved
17
in this lawsuit. The case involves a motor vehicle collision that resulted in serious injuries to
18
Plaintiffs, including the death of a child. The suit is brought against Defendants Jack Bybee
19
Arnold (“Arnold”) and his employer Sturgeon Electric Company (“Sturgeon Electric”). The
20
allegations against Defendant Arnold are that he was negligent in the operation of his motor
21
vehicle, thereby causing the collision and resulting injuries and death. Defendant Sturgeon
22
Electric is being sued as his employer under the theory of respondeat superior. Sturgeon Electric
23
previously moved for summary judgment, arguing that Arnold was not acting within the course
24
and scope of his employment at the time of the collision and that the “traveling employee”
25
exception did not apply outside the context of workers’ compensation claims. The motion was
26

denied. See Minutes of Proceedings (#40).1

27
28
1

After the summary judgment was denied, Sturgeon Electric filed a petition for writ of mandamus
with the Ninth Circuit (#42), which was also denied. See Order of USCA (#43).

1

Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the undersigned conduct a

2

settlement conference. (#44). At hearing on the motion, all parties were optimistic that a

3

settlement conference would be beneficial. Accordingly, the motion was granted (see Mins. of

4

Proceedings (#46)) and a settlement conference went forward on September 12, 2014. No

5

settlement was reached. See Mins. of Proceedings (#50).

6

The current motion is a result of continued settlement conversations between the parties

7

after the settlement conference and is straightforward. Plaintiffs seek an order pursuant to NRS

8

17.245 finding that the settlement agreement reached with Defendant Arnold was reached in

9

good faith. Owing to Defendant Arnold’s financial condition and lack of appreciable assets that

10

could satisfy any judgment in this matter, the parties have settled for the remaining funds

11

available from Defendant Arnold’s automobile insurance policy. See Exhibit 1. Ultimately, the

12

proposed settlement is for $64,549.04, which accounts for the property damage already paid to

13

Plaintiffs out of the $75,000.00 policy limit. It is represented that Arnold has no other insurance

14

policies that would provide coverage. Attached to the motion is a stipulation signed by Sturgeon

15

Electric’s counsel indicating that Sturgeon Electric is unopposed to the pending motion to the

16

extent it is not construed as a waiver of any defenses to the claims, including the defense that

17

Arnold was not acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the collision.

18

Exhibit 2.

19

DISCUSSION

20

Nevada Revised Statute 17.245 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

21

25

When a release or a covenant not to sue or not to enforce judgment is given in
good faith to one of two or more person liable in tort for the same injury or the
same wrongful death:
(a) It does not discharge any of the other tortfeasors from liability for the injury or
wrongful death unless its terms so provide, but it reduces the claim against the
others to the extent of any amount stipulated by the release or the covenant, or in
the amount of the consideration paid for it, which is the greater; and (b) It
discharges the tortfeasor to whom it is given from all liability for contribution and
for equitable indemnity to any other tortfeasor.

26

The determination of whether a settlement is in “good faith” is “left to the discretion of the trial

27

court based upon all relevant facts available.” Velsicol Chemical Corp. v. Davidson, 811 P.2d

28

561, 563 (Nev. 1991). The factors identified in In re MGM Grant Hotel Fire Litig., 570 F. Supp.

22
23
24

-2-

1

913, 927 (D. Nev. 1983) provide a useful, non-exclusive list of factors a court may choose to

2

consider in the exercise of its “considerable discretion.” The Doctors Co. v. Vincent, 98 P.3d

3

681, 686-87 (Nev. 2004). The MGM factors include (1) the amount paid in settlement, (2) the

4

allocation of proceeds between settling plaintiffs, (3) insurance policy limits of settling

5

defendants, (4) the financial condition of settling defendants, and (5) the presence of collusion,

6

fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to harm the interests of non-settling defendants. In re MGM,

7

570 F. Supp. at 927 (citing Commerical Union Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 640 F.2d 210 (9th

8

Cir. 1981)). However, Nevada law does not require a court to limit, or even consider, the MGM

9

factors or hold a hearing before making a determination of good faith. Velsicol, 811 P.2d at 563

10
11

(declining to adopt the “California rule” contrary to the assumption in MGM).
Having considered the record and pertinent factors, including that the potentially affected

12

non-settling defendant does not oppose the settlement agreement, the Court finds that the

13

settlement agreement reached between Plaintiffs and Defendant Arnold was made in good faith

14

for purposes of NRS 17.245. The amount paid is equal to the amount remaining on Arnold’s

15

applicable insurance policy. Arnold has no other appreciable assets that might satisfy any

16

judgment in this matter. There is no evidence of collusion, fraud or tortious conduct aimed at

17

injuring the non-settling defendants. Accordingly,

18
19
20

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Good Faith Settlement (#53) is
granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the settling parties shall file a written joint status

21

report by Friday, December 5, 2014, outlining the status of the settlement. The requirement that

22

the parties submit a written joint status report will be automatically vacated upon filing of a

23

stipulation dismissing Defendant Arnold from the suit.

24

Dated: November 7, 2014.

25
26
27
28

C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
-3-