Terhart v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. et al
Filing
45
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's Motion to Approve Settlement (Docket No. 42); FURTHER, GRANTING Plaintiff's Motion to Seal the Settlement Agreement (Docket No. 43); FURTHER, that the proposed settlement is APPROVED; FURTHER, that this action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs, and FURTHER, that the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Signed by William M. Skretny, Chief Judge U.S.D.C. on 6/19/2012. (CMD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------WENDY D. TERHART, individually and as
Executrix of the Estate of Charles D. Terhart,
Plaintiff,
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
09-CV-1045S
NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP.,
NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICE COMPANY, INC.
and METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------This is an ERISA action that arises out of a dispute concerning the amount of life
insurance payments due under the terms of the decedent’s policies. Before this Court
is a Motion to Approve Settlement and a Motion to Seal the Settlement Agreement.
(Docket Nos. 42 and 43.) Because this action was brought on behalf of an estate, it
cannot be settled without leave of this Court. See Local Rule 41(a)(2)(A).
This Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion and the terms of the settlement
agreement, which contains confidentiality provisions that warrant filing it under seal.
Based on that review, this Court finds that the proposed settlement is in the best
interests of the estate and distributees. In so finding, this Court has considered (1) the
circumstances giving rise to the claim, (2) the nature and extent of the damages, (3) the
terms of the settlement and amount of attorneys’ fees and other disbursements, (4) the
circumstances of any other claims or settlements arising out of this same occurrence,
and (5) the plaintiff’s statement of why she believes this settlement is in the best
interest of the estate and the distributees. See Local Rule 41(a)(2)(i)-(iv). Plaintiff’s
application will therefore be granted and this settlement approved.
IT HEREBY IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion to Approve Settlement (Docket
No. 42) is GRANTED.
FURTHER, that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal the Settlement Agreement (Docket No.
43) is GRANTED.
FURTHER, that the proposed settlement is APPROVED.
FURTHER, that this action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs.
FURTHER, that the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
DATED:
June 19, 2012
Buffalo, NY
s/William M. Skretny
WILLIAM M. SKRETNY
Chief Judge
United States District Court
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?