Torres v. Rothstein

Opinion

CANDY TORRES, Case No.: 2:19-cv-00594-APG-EJY

Plaintiff Order Granting Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement v. [ECF No. 165] ALLAN ROTHSTEIN and KYLE PUNTNEY, Defendants

Defendant Kyle Putney moves for an order declaring that his settlement with plaintiff Candy Torres was made in good faith. ECF No. 165. That declaration would shield Putney from claims by co-defendant Allan Rothstein for contribution and equitable indemnity under Nevada Revised Statutes § 17.245. I have considered the relevant factors discussed by the Supreme Court of Nevada in The Drs. Co. v. Vincent, 98 P.3d 681, 686-87 (Nev. 2004). Putney’s liability, if any, arises from Rothstein’s alleged intentional torts. Putney can assert reasonable defenses against Torres’s claims. Putney has no insurance available to cover any award entered against him in this case. And he does not have significant assets to pay an award. There is no evidence of fraud or collusion between Putney and Torres. Thus, there are several good reasons for Torres to settle with Putney, and the settlement amount is appropriate in light of those reasons. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 I THEREFORE ORDER that defendant Kyle Putney’s motion (ECF No. 165) is granted. I find that Putney’s settlement with plaintiff Candy Torres was made in good faith, and he is entitled to the protections of Nevada Revised Statutes § 17.245. DATED this 2nd day of March, 2022. 5 CG 6 ANDREW P.GORDON sits UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 1]