Doe 550 v. Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon et al, No. 3:2018cv01546 - Document 15 (D. Or. 2019)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. For the reasons stated, the Court GRANTS the Archdiocese's unopposed motion to approve the settlement of Plaintiff's claims against the Archdiocese (ECF No. 14 ), approves the proposed settlement, and authorizes payment to Plaintiff in the amount of $390,000 from the Future Claims Trust. The Court denies all pending motions, if any, as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 6/11/2019 by Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman. (gw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Doe 550 v. Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon et al Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON JACK DOE 550, an individual proceeding under a pseudonym, Case No. 3:18-cv-01546-SB OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, v. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF PORTLAND IN OREGON, AND SUCCESSORS, A CORPORATION SOLE, an Oregon Corporation, d/b/a ARCHDIOCESE OF PORTLAND IN OREGON; and ARCHDIOCESE OF PORTLAND IN OREGON, an Oregon Corporation, Defendants. BECKERMAN, U.S. Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Jack Doe 550 (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, and successors, a corporation sole, dba Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon (“the Archdiocese”), on August 22, 2018. (ECF No. 1.) The Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), because this proceeding relates to In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland (“RCAP”), D. Or. Bankr. Case No. 04-37154, a case arising under Title 11 of the United States Code. Specifically, the Third Amended and Restated PAGE 1 – OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com Joint Plan of Reorganization (“the Plan”) confirmed in RCAP sets a $20 million cap on the funds available to pay claims made against the Archdiocese through 2023. Pending before the Court is the Archdiocese’s unopposed motion to approve the settlement of Plaintiff’s claims, and to approve payment from the Future Claims Trust. (ECF No. 14.) For the following reasons, the Court grants the Archdiocese’s unopposed motion, and approves the proposed settlement. See Wood v. Archdiocese of Portland in Or., 3:11-cv-1126PK, 2012 WL 13055347, at *1 (D. Or. Dec. 31, 2012); In re Claim of MDE, No. MC 08-9261, 2008 WL 5122454, at *1 (D. Or. Dec. 2, 2008). On March 20, 2019, the parties participated in a mediation of their dispute, which resulted in an agreement providing for final settlement of Plaintiff’s claims. Under the settlement, Plaintiff will receive $390,000 from the Future Claims Trust. Any payment from the Future Claims Trust must be approved by the Court pursuant to sections 6.4.5 and 11.8 of the Plan. Section 11.8 of the Plan requires the Archdiocese to provide notice of any motion to approve a settlement subject to the Future Claims Trust to: all Tort Claimants having filed claims or a lawsuit asserting a claim (or having given written notice to the Reorganized Debtor in the case of future claims) whose claims have not been paid in full; the Future Claimants Representative; and the Known Tort Claims Trustee and Future Claims Trustee. A notified party has at least twenty days (plus an additional three days if notice is served by mail) to file objections to the proposed settlement. On April 9, 2019, the Archdiocese served the required notice by mail on all the necessary parties. (ECF No. 14.) The period for filing objections to the parties’ proposed settlement expired PAGE 2 – OPINION AND ORDER on May 2, 2019. No objections were filed. In the absence of objection by any interested party, the Court finds no reason to deny approval of the parties’ proposed settlement. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, the Court GRANTS the Archdiocese’s unopposed motion to approve the settlement of Plaintiff’s claims against the Archdiocese (ECF No. 14), approves the proposed settlement, and authorizes payment to Plaintiff in the amount of $390,000 from the Future Claims Trust. The Court denies all pending motions, if any, as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 11th day of June, 2019. STACIE F. BECKERMAN 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.
