Wilson v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 27, 2023
• Docket: 2:18-cv-01241
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 SONALOLITA WILSON, Case No. 2:18-CV-1241 JCM (NJK)

8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER

9 v.

10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

11 Defendant(s).

12 13 Presently before the court is defendants Liceth Demha-Santiago and Juan Demha’s 14 motion for determination of good faith settlement. (ECF No. 138). Plaintiff Sonalolita Wilson 15 joined that motion in relevant part. (ECF No. 146). 16 Under Nevada law, the determination of whether a settlement is entered in “good faith” 17 under NRS § 17.245 is “left to the discretion of the trial court based upon all relevant facts 18 available.” Velsicol Chemical Corp. v. Davidson, 107 Nev. 356, 811 P.2d 561, 563 (Nev. 1991). 19 The factors discussed in In re MGM Grand Hotel Fire Litigation, 570 F. Supp. 913, 927 (D. 20 Nev. 1983), may be among the relevant facts a court may choose to consider in the exercise of its 21 “considerable discretion.” The Doctors Co. v. Vincent, 120 Nev. 644, 98 P.3d 681, 686-87 (Nev. 22 2004). 23 Such factors include “the amount paid in settlement, the allocation of the settlement 24 proceeds among plaintiffs, the insurance policy limits of settling defendants, the financial 25 condition of settling defendants, and the existence of collusion, fraud or tortious conduct aimed 26 to injure the interests of non-settling defendants.” In re MGM, 570 F. Supp. at 927 (citing 27 Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 640 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1981)). However, 28 1} Nevada law includes no requirement that a court consider or limit its analysis to the MGM 2 | factors or hold a hearing before making a determination of good faith. Velsicol, 811 P.2d at 563. 3 The parties do not meaningfully dispute this motion.! Both urge the court to find that the settlement was made in good faith. Upon review, the court agrees. It finds that the settlement 5 | was made in good faith. Defendants’ limited financial resources, the fact that the settlement 6 | amount represents the upper threshold of insurance coverage, and the potential for a verdict awarding plaintiff nothing because she was comparatively negligent all weigh in favor of 8 | determining a good faith settlement. In addition, the court sees no evidence suggesting this 9 settlement was the result of fraud, collusion, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interest of 10 | the remaining defendant—the United States. 11 Accordingly, 12 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that defendants’ motion for 13 | determination of a good faith settlement (ECF No. 138) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motions in limine (ECF Nos. 129; 130; 15 131; 133) be, and the same hereby are, DENIED, as moot. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff and defendants shall submit a stipulation or 17 | proposed order dismissing defendants on or before Monday, April 3, 2023. 18 DATED March 27, 2023. 19 Btw ©. Atalan 0 UNITED, STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 00 ' Plaintiff disputes defendants’ arguments regarding comparative negligence, 28 presumptively to avoid waiving them at trial. The court need not address them here to determine that the settlement was nevertheless made in good faith. es C. Mahan District Judge _2-