Doe 310 v. Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon, et al, No. 3:2013cv00822 - Document 68 (D. Or. 2014)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: The motion (# 66 ) to approve the settlement of plaintiffs claims against the defendants and to approve payment from the future claims trust is granted, the settlement agreed to by plaintiff and the defendants is approved, and payment to plaintiff of $185,000 from the future claims trust is authorized. All pending motions are denied as moot Signed on September 29, 2014 by Judge Michael H. Simon and Judge Paul Papak. (eo)

Download PDF
Doe 310 v. Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon, et al Doc. 68 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON JOHN DOE 310, 3:13-CV-822-PK Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PORTLAND IN OREGON and THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF PORTLAND IN OREGON, Defendants. SIMON, District Judge; PAPAK, Magistrate Judge: Plaintiff John Doe 310 filed this action against defendants the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon on May 15, 2013. This court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), based on the relatedness of these proceedings to In re Roman Catholic Archbishop ofPortland ("RCAP"), 04-37154, a Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com case arising under Title 11 of the United States Code. Specifically, this action is subject to the future claims trust provided for in the Third Amended and Restated Joint Plan of Reorganization (the "Plan") confirmed in RCAP, which, in relevant part, sets a $20 million cap on the total funds available to pay all claims made against the defendants through 2023. Now before the court is the defendants' unopposed motion (#66) to approve the settlement of plaintiffs claims and to approve payment from the future claims trust. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted and the settlement is approved. Plaintiff and the defendants underwent mediation of their dispute beginning on July 15, 2014, resulting in an agreement providing for final settlement of plaintiffs claims. If the parties' settlement is approved, plaintiff will receive $185,000 from the future claims trust. Pursuant to section 6.4.5 of the Plan, the parties' settlement, and therefore payment to plaintiff out of the future claims trust, is subject to this court's approval. Section 11.8 of the Plan requires that notice of any motion to approve a settlement subject to the future claims trust be served on all plaintiffs with pending or otherwise unpaid claims against the Archdiocese and Archbishop, Future Claimants Representative David A. Foraker, and Known Tort Claims Trustee and Future Claims Trustee Union Bank of California. Section 11.8 further provides that all notified parties must be provided at least 20 days (plus an additional 3 days if notice is served by mail) in which to file objections, if any, to any such motion. On September 3, 2014, defendants served the requisite notice by mail on all of the necessary parties. The period for filing objections to this court's approval of the parties' settlement lapsed September 26, 2014. No objection to this motion has been filed. In the absence of objection by any interested party, and in consideration of the size of the Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER .. payment at issue relative to the amount remaining in the future trust fund, the undersigned find no reason exists to refuse approval of the parties' settlement. The defendants' motion is therefore granted, and the subject settlement approved. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the motion (#66) to approve the settlement of plaintiffs claims against the defendants and to approve payment from the future claims trust is granted, the settlement agreed to by plaintiff and the defendants is approved, and payment to plaintiff of $185,000 from the future claims trust is authorized. All pending motions are denied as moot. Dated this 29th day of September, 2014. ｾ＠ onorabTeMicliaeiSiill United States District Judge onorable Paul Pap United States Magistrate Judge Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.