Maas v. Candito

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA [3] 4 MARIAH MAAS, as Special Administrator for the Estate of Tiffany Slatsky, et al., Case No.: 2:22-cv-00568-GMN-DJA [5] Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR [6] vs. DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH 7 SETTLEMENT CHRISTOPHER CANDITO, et al., [8] Defendants. [9] 10 Pending before the Court is the Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement, 11 (ECF No. 100), filed by Plaintiffs Mariah Mass, as Special Administrator for the Estate of 12 Tiffany Slatsky, Martin Slatsky, as parent and legal guardian of Cade Slatsky, and Martin 13 Slatsky, as an individual. Defendants Andrew Clapper and Nicholas Robinson joined the 14 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement, (ECF Nos. 101, 102). 15 Defendants Andrew Stocker, City of North Las Vegas, and Christopher Candito did not 16 respond, and the time to do so has passed. 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 This action arises out of Tiffany Slatsky’s death via drug overdose after she attended a 19 party held by North Las Vegas firefighters and EMTs. Plaintiffs initiated this suit in February 20 2022, and Defendants removed the action to federal court in April 2022. (Pet. for Removal at 1, 21 ECF No. 1). The City of North Las Vegas and the North Las Vegas Fire Department filed a 22 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against them, which the Court denied. (Order, ECF No. 23 64). After a period of discovery, the Court approved the parties’ stipulation to stay discovery 24 pending private mediation. (ECF Nos. 94, 95). Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion after that [25] 1 mediation was completed, seeking an order from the Court determining that the settlement has 2 been made in good faith. (See Mot. Determination of Good Faith Settlement, ECF No. 100). 3 II. LEGAL STANDARD 4 Under Nevada law, the determination of whether a settlement is in “good faith” under 5 Nev. Rev. Stat. 17.245 is “left to the discretion of the trial court based upon all relevant facts 6 available.” Velsicol Chem. Corp. v. Davidson, 811 P.2d 561, 563 (Nev. 1991). The factors 7 discussed in In re MGM Grand Hotel Fire Litig., 570 F. Supp. 913, 927 (D. Nev. 1983) may be 8 among the relevant facts a court may choose to consider in the exercise of its “considerable 9 discretion.” The Doctors Co. v. Vincent, 98 P.3d 681 , 686–87 (Nev. 2004). Such factors 10 include “the amount paid in settlement, the allocation of the settlement proceeds among 11 plaintiffs, the insurance policy limits of settling defendants, the financial condition of settling 12 defendants, and the existence of collusion, fraud or tortious conduct aimed to injure the 13 interests of non-settling defendants.” In re MGM, 570 F. Supp. at 927 . However, Nevada law 14 includes no requirement that a court consider or limit its analysis to the MGM factors or hold a 15 hearing before making a determination of good faith. Velsicol Chem. Corp., 811 P.2d at 563 . 16 III. DISCUSSION 17 In their Motion, Plaintiffs have addressed each of the applicable MGM factors. (See 18 generally Mot. Determination of Good Faith Settlement, ECF No. 100). Plaintiffs submit that 19 they have reached an agreement with Defendants Nicholas Robison, Andrew Clapper, and 20 Andrew Stocker for a total of $402,500, which reflects “the potential liability and Defendants’ 21 defenses.” (Id. at 3-4, 6). In exchange, Plaintiffs will release Defendants Robison, Clapper, and 22 Stocker from all further liability in this matter. (Id. at 5). 23 Regarding the MGM factors, Plaintiffs aver that the settlement amount is reasonable, and 24 takes into consideration the liability of each Defendant, the damages each of the Plaintiffs 25 suffered, and their respective part and future medical expenses. (Id. at 6). They explain that the 1 || Decedent’s minor son will receive 85% of the settlement proceeds, while the Decedent’s father 2 || will receive 15%. (/d.). Plaintiffs assert that, after attorneys’ fees and costs, Plaintiffs will each 3 || receive a reasonable settlement. (/d.). Based on the comparative liability of the Defendants in 4 || this case and the injury each Plaintiff suffered, the Court agrees that the total settlement amount 5 || and the allocation of the settlement is reasonable. Finally, Plaintiffs assert that the parties 6 ||reached a fair settlement through a court-appointed mediation in which Defendant City of 7 North Las Vegas participated, and that the arm’s length negotiation was free from collusion, g || fraud, or tortious conduct. (/d. at 7). 9 Considering the foregoing discussion of the relevant MGM factors, and because no party 10 || has opposed Plaintiffs’ motion, the Court finds that the settlement between Plaintiffs and 11 || Defendants Robison, Clapper, and Stocker was made in good faith. The Court therefore 12 || GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement. 13 IV. CONCLUSION 14 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Determination of Good Faith 15 Settlement, (ECF No. 100), is GRANTED. 16 DATED this _14 _ day of November, 2024. [18] 19 Gloria Mi] Navarro, District Judge 50 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [25] Page 3 of 3