Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Aragon v. Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford, 2:13-cv-01728-GMN-GWF. (2015)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20150304e26 Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY ORDER AND SET ASIDE JUDGMENT GLORIA M. NAVARRO , Chief District Judge . Defendant PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, by and through its attorneys AKERMAN LLP, and Plaintiffs Diana K. Aragon and Angel Bratcher, individually and as natural parent and guardian of D.B., a minor, by and through their attorneys RICHARD HARRIS LAw FIRM, hereby stipulate and request the following: 1. On or about November 21, 2014, the parties reached a settlement as
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY ORDER AND SET ASIDE JUDGMENT

Defendant PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, by and through its attorneys AKERMAN LLP, and Plaintiffs Diana K. Aragon and Angel Bratcher, individually and as natural parent and guardian of D.B., a minor, by and through their attorneys RICHARD HARRIS LAw FIRM, hereby stipulate and request the following:

1. On or about November 21, 2014, the parties reached a settlement as to the claims of D.B., a minor. Because D.B. was a minor, this Court's approval was required to compromise his claim. Accordingly, as part of the settlement agreement, the parties agreed that plaintiff would seek that approval.

2. Pursuant to the parties' agreement, plaintiff filed a petition to compromise D.B.'s claim. See ECF No. 31.

3. On Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. recommended that the District Court grant the petition. See ECF No. 40.

4. On February 26, 2015, the District Court entered its order granting the petition. The order, however, mistakenly directed the clerk to enter judgment against Hartford. The parties did not seek the entry of judgment against Hartford in the petition.

5. The mistaken entry of judgment was contrary to the agreement between the parties. The parties had agreed that the resolution of the minor's claim would be treated solely as a settlement. The parties never asked the Court to enter judgment against Hartford nor was it ever contemplated by them.

6. Accordingly, the parties stipulate and agree that the portion of the order on the compromise of minor's claim directing the clerk to enter judgment (paragraphs 20 and 21 from page two) should be stricken. All other portions of the order approving the compromise of minor's claim should remain in effect.

7. Further, the parties stipulate and agree that the clerk's judgment, ECF No. 41, should be set aside.

8. Finally, the parties stipulate and agree that Hartford has satisfied all settlement obligations and that the disposition of this lawsuit should end in dismissal of all claims, with prejudice, and with each party responsible for its own costs and fees.

ORDER

UPON STIPULATION of the the parties, and good cause appearing therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Order (ECF No. 40) Accepting Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr.'s Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 36) and granting the Petition for Compromise of Disputed Claim of Minor (ECF No. 31) is hereby AMENDED to strike that portion of the Order directing the Clerk of Court to "enter judgment accordingly" and an Amended Order (ECF No. 40) Accepting Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr.'s Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 36) and granting the Petition for Compromise of Disputed Claim of Minor (ECF No. 31) shall be filed with the Clerk of Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the judgment entered on February 26, 2015 (ECF No. 41) shall be STRICKEN from the record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(3), the minor plaintiff will be referred to herein by his initials, D.B.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer