The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, et al v. Killinger et al, No. 2:2011cv00459 - Document 90 (W.D. Wash. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER ON MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF REASONABLENESS 87 Stipulated Motion for a reasonableness determination and entry of a final judgment, by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD) (Entered: 04/11/2012)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 11 THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as RECEIVER of WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF REASONABLENESS v. 13 14 CASE NO. C11-459 MJP KERRY K. KILLINGER, et al., Defendants. 15 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ stipulated motion for a reasonableness 18 determination and entry of a final judgment. (Dkt. No. 87.) Having reviewed the motion and all 19 supporting documents, the Court finds that it cannot rule on the motion without further 20 information and briefing. The Court therefore RESERVES RULING on the motion pending 21 further briefing. 22 In order to determine whether the Settlement Agreement reached by the parties is 23 reasonable, the Court must review the following factors: 24 \\ ORDER ON MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF REASONABLENESS- 1 1 2 3 [T]he releasing person’s damages; the merits of the releasing person’s liability theory; the merits of the released person’s defense theory; the released person’s relative faults; the risks and expenses of continued litigation; the released person’s ability to pay; any evidence of bad faith, collusion, or fraud; the extent of the releasing person’s investigation and preparation of the case; and the interests of the parties not being released. 4 5 Glover v. Tacoma Gen. Hosp., 98 Wn.2d 708, 717 (1983). 6 The materials the parties have provided are inadequate for the Court to provide any 7 meaningful or substantive review of these factors. In particular, the parties provided no 8 information as to the Plaintiff’s damages, the Defendants’ relative faults, and the Defendants’ 9 ability to pay. The Court is also not persuaded that the declaration of Layn Phillips is alone 10 sufficient to show the reasonableness of the settlement. It is without facts and analysis of the 11 factors to be considered, including but not limited to Defendants’ assets and ability to pay. Mr. 12 Phillips is a mediator paid to bring the parties to a settlement, not to measure the objective 13 reasonableness of any agreement reached. As such, his opinion does not substitute this Court’s 14 independent analysis of the Glover factors. 15 The Court will consider a renewed motion that addresses the full spectrum of factors the 16 Court is to consider with substantive declarations and documents supporting the parties’ 17 positions. Any renewed motion must be filed within 15 days of entry of this order. 18 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. 19 Dated this 11th day of April, 2012. 20 A 21 22 Marsha J. Pechman United States District Judge 23 24 ORDER ON MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF REASONABLENESS- 2
]]>
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.
