Kroshus et al v. United States of America et al

Filing 839

ORDER GRANTING 640 Defendant KEYSTONE REALTY's Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement, each party to bear its own attorney fees and costs. All claim, whether known or unknown, against Defendant KEYSTONE for contribution and/or equitable indemnity are extinguished. (See Order for specifics.) Signed by Judge Lloyd D. George on 8/17/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 Anthony T. Case, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6589 Aileen E. Cohen, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 5263 FARMER CASE & FEDOR 9065 S. Pecos Road, Suite 200 Henderson, NV 89074 (702) 579-3900 / (702) 739-3001 (Fax) tcase@farmercase.com acohen@farmercase.com 6 7 8 9 10 John M. Fedor, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice) FARMER CASE & FEDOR 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1100 San Diego, California 92101 (619) 338-0300 / (619) 338-0180 (Fax) jfedor@farmercase.com Attorneys for Defendant KEYSTONE REALTY 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 JUDY KROSHUS, et al., 15 16 17 Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al., 18 Defendants. 19 20 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 3:08-cv-00246-LDG-RAM CASE NO.: 3:09-cv-00713-RCJ-RAM ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT KEYSTONE REALTY’S MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT 21 22 Defendant, KEYSTONE REALTY, by and through its attorneys, FARMER CASE HACK 23 & FEDOR, having received no opposition to its (Document No. 640) Motion for Determination of 24 Good Faith Settlement and having made no appearance as a result, and the Court having 25 considered the papers and pleadings on file herein, 26 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: 27 28 C:\Users\Remote\AppData\Local\Temp\Motion for Good Faith.Order Granting.doc ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT KEYSTONE REALTY’S MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT 1 2 3 4 5 1. The Court has considered the factors discussed in The Doctors Co. v. Vincent, 120 Nev. 644, at 652, 98 P.3d 681, at 687 (2004). 2. The Court has considered the factors discussed in MGM Grand Hotel Fire, 570 F.Supp. 913 (D.Nev. 1983). 3. The Court has considered the settlement amount of $60,000.00 between Plaintiffs 6 and Defendant KEYSTONE REALTY, which is to be paid from insurance funds. The Court 7 finds that the settlement amount is reasonable and sufficient. 8 4. The Court has considered the damages claimed by Plaintiffs, and it has considered 9 the risks of proceeding on both sides. The Court finds that there is a strong potential that 10 Defendant KEYSTONE REALTY would be able to prevail against the Plaintiffs’ claims 11 pursuant to NRS Chapter 645. 12 5. The Court has considered whether there was collusion or fraud relating to the 13 settlement. The Court has considered whether there was collusion or fraud relating to the 14 settlement. The Court finds that there was no collusion or fraud relating to the settlement 15 between Plaintiffs and Defendant KEYSTONE REALTY. The settlement amount was 16 determines through an arms length negotiation. 17 6. The Court has considered the financial condition of the settling defendants and the 18 insurance coverage of the settling defendant. Defendant KEYSTONE REALTY is insured and 19 the insurance is sufficient to cover the settlement. The Court finds that the settlement amount 20 reasonable and sufficient in light of Defendant KEYSTONE REALTY’s insurance coverage. 21 7. The Court has considered the strength and weaknesses of potential indemnity and 22 contribution claims. The Court hold that Defendant KEYSTONE REALTY would be able to 23 show that they did not have active fault. The Court finds that potential claims for contribution 24 and equitable indemnity do not weigh in favor of denying good faith. 25 8. The settlement agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendant KEYSTONE 26 REALTY satisfies the factors set forth in The Doctors Co. v. Vincent, 120 Nev. 644, at 652, 98 27 P.3d 681, at 687 (2004) and MGM Grand Hotel Fire, 570 F.Supp. 913 (D.Nev. 1983). 28 C:\Users\Remote\AppData\Local\Temp\Motion for Good Faith.Order Granting.doc 2 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT KEYSTONE REALTY’S MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT 1 9. The settlement agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendant KEYSTONE 2 REALTY was entered into in good faith. 3 /// 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. No opposition, written or oral, was received to Defendant KEYSTONE REALTY’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement. 11. Defendant KEYSTONE REALTY’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is hereby granted in its entirety. 12. All claims, whether known or unknown, against Defendant KEYSTONE REALTY for contribution and/or equitable indemnity are hereby extinguished pursuant to NRS 17.245. 10 IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: 11 1. 12 13 14 Defendant KEYSTONE REALTY’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is hereby GRANTED, each part to bear its own attorney fees and costs; 2. All claim, whether known or unknown, against Defendant KEYSTONE REALTY for contribution and/or equitable indemnity are hereby extinguished. 15 16 Dated this ____day of _____________, 2012 17 18 _______________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C:\Users\Remote\AppData\Local\Temp\Motion for Good Faith.Order Granting.doc 3 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT KEYSTONE REALTY’S MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT 1 Respectfully submitted by: 2 3 FARMER CASE HACK & FEDOR By: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Date: ________________________________ Anthony T. Case, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 6589 Aileen E. Cohen, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 5263 John M. Fedor, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Admission 9065 S. Pecos Road, Suite 200 Henderson, NV 89074 Counsel for Defendant KEYSTONE REALTY 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C:\Users\Remote\AppData\Local\Temp\Motion for Good Faith.Order Granting.doc 4 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT KEYSTONE REALTY’S MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?