Horning v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon and Successors a Corporation Sole
Filing
27
OPINION & ORDER: Defendant's Motion 25 to approve the settlement of Plaintiff's claims against the Archbishop and to approve payment from the future claims trust is Granted, the settlement agreed to by Plaintiff and the Archbishop is approved, and payment to Plaintiff of $480,000 from the future claims trust is authorized. All pending motions are Denied as Moot. Signed on 7/12/12 by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. (gm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
CAROLEE HORNING,
Plaintiff,
6: ll-CV -6305-PK
OPINION AND
ORDER
v.
ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF
PORTLAND IN OREGON,
Defendant.
PAPAK, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Carolee Horning filed this action against defendant Roman Catholic Archbishop
of Portland in Oregon (the "Archbishop") on September 28,2011. This court has jurisdiction
over plaintiffs action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง l334(b), based on the relatedness ofthese
proceedings to In re Roman Catholic Archbishop ofPortland ("RCAP"), 04-37154, a case arising
under Title II of the United States Code. Specifically, this action is subject to the future claims
Page I - OPINION AND ORDER
trust provided for in the Third Amended and Restated Joint Plan of Reorganization (the "Plan")
confirmed in ReAP, which, in relevant part, sets a $20 million cap on the total funds available to
pay all claims made against the Archbishop (andlor the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon)
through 2023.
Now before the court is the Archbishop's unopposed motion (#25) to approve the
settlement of plaintiffs claims and to approve payment from the future claims trust. For the
reasons set forth below, the motion is granted and the settlement is approved.
Plaintiff and the Archbishop underwent mediation of their dispute on May 14, 2012,
resulting in an agreement providing for final settlement of Horning's claims against the
Archbishop. If the parties' settlement is approved, Horning will receive $480,000 from the future
claims trust. Pursuant to section 6.4.5 of the Plan, the parties' settlement, and therefore payment
to plaintiff out of the future claims trust, is subject to this court's approval.
Section 11.8 of the Plan requires that notice of any motion to approve a settlement subject
to the future claims trust be served on all plaintiffs with pending or otherwise unpaid claims
against the Archdiocese and Archbishop, Future Claimants Representative David A. Foraker, and
Known Tort Claims Trustee and Future Claims Trustee Union Bank of California. Section 11.8
fuliher provides that all notified parties must be provided at least 20 days (plus an additional 3
days if notice is served by mail) in which to file objections, if any, to any such motion.
On June 18, 2012, the Archbishop served the requisite notice by mail on all of the
necessary parties. The period for filing objections to this court's approval of the paIiies'
settlement lapsed July 11,2011. No objection to this motion has been filed.
In the absence of objection by any interested paIty, and in consideration of the size of the
Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER
payment at issue relative to the amount remaining in the future trust fund, I find no reason exists
to refuse approval of the parties' settlement. The Archbishop's motion is therefore granted, and
the subject settlement approved.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set fOlih above, the motion (#25) to approve the settlement of plaintiffs
claims against the Archbishop and to approve payment from the fhture claims trust is granted, the
settlement agreed to by plaintiff and the Archbishop is approved, and payment to plaintiff of
$480,000 from the future claims trust is authorized. All pending motions are denied as moot.
Dated this 12th day of July, 2012.
\)\ ~\J~A
/'
\
0
v0Lt~l f~L
Honora Ie Paul Papa
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER
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?