Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ford v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

United States District Court, D. Nevada

June 26, 2019

LINDY FORD, Plaintiffs,
v.
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

         Presently 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.

         Also 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).

         Also 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).

         I. Facts

         Plaintiff 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).

         All 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).

         II. Legal Standard

         Under 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).

         Such 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.

         III. Discussion

         a. Motion for determination of good faith settlement

         In its 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.

         Paris 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.

         Because 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 . . . ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.