Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

settlementtortplaintiffdefendantdiscoveryliabilityindemnitytrialverdictmotiontrustleasesustainedgood faith

settlementtortplaintiffdefendantliabilitymotionleasesustainedgood faith

Related Cases

Prado v. Perez

Facts

This action arises from a non-contact accident between a 2012 Yamaha Cruiser XV250 motorcycle driven by Prado-Guajardo and Perez's 2010 Kenworth T800 DS-Tractor Truck on December 5, 2013. Due to injuries Prado-Guajardo sustained from this accident, which she alleges Perez caused, Prado-Guajardo brought a personal injury suit against Perez on December 4, 2015 in Nevada District Court. Perez removed the action to Federal District Court on March 11, 2016. In August 2016, Perez filed a Third-Party Complaint for indemnity and contribution against Third-Party Defendant Shayna Diaz, alleging that Diaz negligently entrusted the motorcycle to Prado-Guajardo, who did not have a license to operate it.

Due to injuries Prado-Guajardo sustained from this accident, which she alleges Perez caused, Prado-Guajardo brought a personal injury suit against Perez on December 4, 2015 in Nevada District Court.

Issue

Whether a settlement between a plaintiff and a third-party defendant against whom the plaintiff did not assert a direct claim could support a finding of good faith, and whether Perez would still have the right to argue at trial that Diaz's comparative fault reduces his liability.

Whether a settlement between a plaintiff and a third-party defendant against whom the plaintiff did not assert a direct claim could support a finding of good faith.

Rule

Under Nev. Rev. Stat. 17.245, a release or covenant not to sue given in good faith to one of multiple tortfeasors does not discharge the others from liability unless specified, but reduces claims against them. It also discharges the settling tortfeasor from liability for contribution and equitable indemnity.

Analysis

The court found that the proposed settlement on its face satisfies Nev. Rev. Stat. 17.245's good-faith requirement, predicated on the MGM factors. The settlement amount of $15,000 was deemed appropriate given Diaz's limited financial capacity and the ongoing discovery process. The court noted that if the settlement is approved, Perez would receive a credit for the amount contributed by Diaz in any subsequent verdict against him.

The court found that the proposed settlement on its face satisfies Nev. Rev. Stat. 17.245's good-faith requirement, predicated on the MGM factors.

Conclusion

The court recommended that Diaz's Motion for Good Faith Settlement be conditionally granted, allowing the settlement to proceed while ensuring that Perez retains the right to argue Diaz's comparative fault at trial.

The court recommended that Diaz's Motion for Good Faith Settlement be conditionally granted.

Who won?

Shayna Diaz prevailed in the motion for determination of good faith settlement as the court recommended granting her motion, finding the settlement was made in good faith.

Shayna Diaz prevailed in the motion for determination of good faith settlement as the court recommended granting her motion.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Hamide; U.S. v.

Villatoro-Ventura; U.S. v.

Mkrtchyan; U.S. v.

Moreno; U.S. v.

Almaqrami v. Blinken