United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is Defendant Paris Las Vegas Operating
Company, LLC's (“Paris Las Vegas”) motion for
determination of good faith settlement. (ECF No. 43). No.
response has been filed, and the time to do so has passed.
before the court is defendants Caesars Entertainment
Corporation (“Caesars”) and Paris Las Vegas'
motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 9). Plaintiff Lindy Ford
(“plaintiff”) filed a response (ECF No. 18), to
which Caesars and Paris Las Vegas replied (ECF No. 23).
before the court is defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department's (“LVMPD”) motion to dismiss.
(ECF No. 38). Plaintiff filed a response (ECF No. 41), to
which LVMPD replied (ECF No. 42).
brought this action on July 20, 2018, asserting claims for
negligence, negligent supervision and training, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, battery, and false
imprisonment against Paris Las Vegas, Caesars, and LVMPD.
(ECF Nos. 1, 43 at 2). These claims stem from an incident
wherein Paris Las Vegas detained plaintiff and contacted
LVMPD, which later arrested plaintiff for trespass. (ECF Nos.
1, at 6, 43 at 2).
defendants except Paris Las Vegas have been dismissed. (ECF
Nos. 40, 47). Following negotiations, Paris Las Vegas and
plaintiff agreed to settle plaintiff's remaining claims
for $1, 500. (ECF No. 43 at 3). The court now considers Paris
Las Vegas' motion for determination of good faith
settlement. (ECF No. 43).
Nevada law, the determination of whether a settlement is
entered in “good faith” under NRS 17.245 is
“left to the discretion of the trial court based upon
all relevant facts available.” Velsicol Chemical
Corp. v. Davidson, 107 Nev. 356, 811 P.2d 561, 563 (Nev.
1991). The factors discussed in In re MGM Grand Hotel
Fire Litigation, 570 F.Supp. 913, 927 (D. Nev. 1983),
may be among the relevant facts a court may choose to
consider in the exercise of its “considerable
discretion.” The Doctors Co. v. Vincent, 120
Nev. 644, 98 P.3d 681, 686-87 (Nev. 2004).
factors include “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.” In re
MGM, 570 F.Supp. at 927 (citing Commercial Union
Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 640 F.2d 210 (9th Cir.
1981)). However, Nevada law includes no requirement that a
court consider or limit its analysis to the MGM
factors or hold a hearing before making a determination of
good faith. Velsicol, 811 P.2d at 563.
Motion for determination of good faith settlement
motion, Paris Las Vegas has addressed each of the applicable
MGM factors. (ECF No. 43). Paris Las Vegas submits
that it has reached an agreement with plaintiff to settle for
$1, 500 in exchange for full release of plaintiff's
claims. Id. Paris Las Vegas asserts that the parties
arrived at this fair settlement after conducting arms-length
negotiations. Id. at 4.
Las Vegas submits there are no issues related to allocation
of settlement funds among plaintiffs because there is only
one plaintiff in this action. Id. Likewise, there
are no issues with Paris Las Vegas' insurance policy
limits or its financial condition, as it has acknowledged its
ability to pay the $1, 500 without the need for an insurance
claim. Id. at 4-5. Furthermore, there is no
possibility of fraudulent or tortious conduct aimed at other
defendants, as there are no other defendants remaining in
this action. Id. at 5.
a determination of good faith settlement is supported under
all five MGM factors, and because no party has
opposed Paris Las Vegas' motion, the court finds that
Paris Las Vegas has shown that the settlement was reached in
good faith. See LR 7-2(d)(“The failure of an
opposing party to file points and authorities in response to
any motion . . . ...