GUZMAN v. THE PEP BOYS MANNY MOE AND JACK OF CALIFORNIA, 2:17-cv-00386-APG-GWF. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20171030d80
Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 20, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 20, 2017
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT ANDREW P. GORDON , District Judge . Defendant Pep Boys Manny Moe and Jack of California move for an order finding that its settlement with the plaintiff was made in good faith under Nevada Revised Statute 17.245. ECF No. 26. No opposition has been filed; therefore, I may presume the other parties consent to the granting of the motion. See Local Rule 7-2(d). Moreover, good cause supports granting the motion pursuant to the
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT ANDREW P. GORDON , District Judge . Defendant Pep Boys Manny Moe and Jack of California move for an order finding that its settlement with the plaintiff was made in good faith under Nevada Revised Statute 17.245. ECF No. 26. No opposition has been filed; therefore, I may presume the other parties consent to the granting of the motion. See Local Rule 7-2(d). Moreover, good cause supports granting the motion pursuant to the f..
More
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT
ANDREW P. GORDON, District Judge.
Defendant Pep Boys Manny Moe and Jack of California move for an order finding that its settlement with the plaintiff was made in good faith under Nevada Revised Statute § 17.245. ECF No. 26. No opposition has been filed; therefore, I may presume the other parties consent to the granting of the motion. See Local Rule 7-2(d). Moreover, good cause supports granting the motion pursuant to the factors set forth in In re MGM Grand Hotel Fire Litig., 570 F.Supp. 913, 927 (D. Nev. 1983) ("Factors to be considered by the Court in assessing whether a settlement is in good faith [are] the amount paid in settlement, the allocation of the settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, the insurance policy limits of settling defendants, the financial condition of settling defendants, and the existence of collusion, fraud or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of non-settling defendants."). I find the parties reached their settlement in good faith and defendant Pep Boys is entitled to the protections of Nevada Revised Statute § 17.245.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for good faith settlement (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED.
Source: Leagle
