Companion Property and Casualty Group v. Consolidated Agent Partners et al

Filing 223

ORDER - Absent objection from Highpoint on or before March 6, 2015, the court will sign and enter plaintiff's proposed order (# 122 Reply Ex. A) and direct that the settlement of the parties be reduced to judgment. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 2/27/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

COMPANION PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
GROUP,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CONSOLIDATED AGENCY PARTNERS, dba )
MENICUCCI INSURANCE ASSOCIATES, )
KAREN FAUST, HIGHPOINT RISK
)
SERVICES LLC, PINNACLE
)
UNDERWRITERS, INC., RISK
)
PLACEMENT SERVICES, INC. dba RISK )
PLACEMENT SERVICES, INSURANCE
)
BROKERS, JOAN VASCONES, GLORIA
)
LAM, SKY HIGH SPORTS, LLC, SKY
)
HIGH SPORTS ORANGE COUNTY
)
OPERATIONS, LLC, and ROLLAND
)
WEDDELL, et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________ )

3:12-cv-00595-HDM-VPC
ORDER

20
On January 5, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to enforce its
21
good faith settlement with defendant Highpoint Risk Services, LLC
22
and requested that the settlement be reduced to judgment (#212).
23
The motion included a proposed judgment, attached as Exhibit J,
24
which would award plaintiff the settlement amount of $250,000.00
25
plus prejudgment interest at a rate of 5.25% from the date the good
26
faith settlement was approved until the date of judgment and
27
postjudgment interest thereafter at the legal rate until the
28
1

1
2

judgment is satisfied.
On February 18, 2015, Highpoint responded to plaintiff’s

3

motion (#221).

4

asks that the court enter an order clearly defining the scope of

5

the parties’ agreement.

6

response a proposed order to that effect.

7

does not address the issue of interest, Highpoint’s response

8

indicates that it is “agreeable to the form of the order submitted

9

by Companion as Exhibit J to the Motion to Enforce.”

Although Highpoint does not oppose the motion, it

Highpoint attaches as Exhibit A to its
While the proposed order

As just

10

noted, Exhibit J is a proposed judgment that includes the payment

11

of pre- and post-judgment interest.

12

On February 20, 2015, plaintiff filed a reply (#222) along

13

with a proposed modification of Highpoint’s proposed order.

14

modification makes clear the only claims dismissed by virtue of the

15

settlement are those at issue in this action and adds language

16

regarding the payment of pre- and post-judgment interest.

The

17

Plaintiff’s proposed order, attached as Exhibit A to its

18

reply, appears to be in accordance with the requests and positions

19

of both parties.

20

or before March 6, 2015, the court will sign and enter plaintiff’s

21

proposed order (Reply Ex. A) and direct that the settlement of the

22

parties be reduced to judgment.

Accordingly, absent objection from Highpoint on

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

DATED: This 27th day of February, 2015.

25
26

____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2