Torres v. Rothstein

D. Nevada

Torres v. Rothstein

DecidedMarch 2, 2022

Docket2:19-cv-00594

StatusUnknown

This text of Torres v. Rothstein (Torres v. Rothstein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Torres v. Rothstein, (D. Nev. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 CANDY TORRES, Case No.: 2:19-cv-00594-APG-EJY

4 Plaintiff Order Granting Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement 5 v. [ECF No. 165] 6 ALLAN ROTHSTEIN and KYLE PUNTNEY, 7 Defendants 8

9 Defendant Kyle Putney moves for an order declaring that his settlement with plaintiff 10 Candy Torres was made in good faith. ECF No. 165. That declaration would shield Putney from 11 claims by co-defendant Allan Rothstein for contribution and equitable indemnity under Nevada 12 Revised Statutes § 17.245. 13 I have considered the relevant factors discussed by the Supreme Court of Nevada in The 14 Drs. Co. v. Vincent, 98 P.3d 681, 686-87 (Nev. 2004). Putney’s liability, if any, arises from 15 Rothstein’s alleged intentional torts. Putney can assert reasonable defenses against Torres’s 16 claims. Putney has no insurance available to cover any award entered against him in this case. 17 And he does not have significant assets to pay an award. There is no evidence of fraud or 18 collusion between Putney and Torres. Thus, there are several good reasons for Torres to settle 19 with Putney, and the settlement amount is appropriate in light of those reasons. 20 / / / / 21 / / / / 22 / / / / 23 / / / / 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. 4 DATED this 2nd day of March, 2022. 5 CG 6 ANDREW P.GORDON sits UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 CANDY TORRES, Case No.: 2:19-cv-00594-APG-EJY

4 Plaintiff Order Granting Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement 5 v. [ECF No. 165] 6 ALLAN ROTHSTEIN and KYLE PUNTNEY, 7 Defendants 8

9 Defendant Kyle Putney moves for an order declaring that his settlement with plaintiff 10 Candy Torres was made in good faith. ECF No. 165. That declaration would shield Putney from 11 claims by co-defendant Allan Rothstein for contribution and equitable indemnity under Nevada 12 Revised Statutes § 17.245. 13 I have considered the relevant factors discussed by the Supreme Court of Nevada in The 14 Drs. Co. v. Vincent, 98 P.3d 681, 686-87 (Nev. 2004). Putney’s liability, if any, arises from 15 Rothstein’s alleged intentional torts. Putney can assert reasonable defenses against Torres’s 16 claims. Putney has no insurance available to cover any award entered against him in this case. 17 And he does not have significant assets to pay an award. There is no evidence of fraud or 18 collusion between Putney and Torres. Thus, there are several good reasons for Torres to settle 19 with Putney, and the settlement amount is appropriate in light of those reasons. 20 / / / / 21 / / / / 22 / / / / 23 / / / / 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. 4 DATED this 2nd day of March, 2022. 5 CG 6 ANDREW P.GORDON sits UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Torres v. Rothstein, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torres-v-rothstein-nvd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack