The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, et al v. Killinger et al, No. 2:2011cv00459 - Document 87 (W.D. Wash. 2012)
Court Description: MOTION to Dismiss [Defendants Motion for a Reasonableness Determination and Entry of Final Judgment of Dismissal Pursuant to Settlement] by Defendants Kerry K Killinger, Linda C Killinger, Esther T Rotella, Stephen J Rotella, David C Schneider. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 2/24/2012, (Caplow, Steven) (Entered: 02/24/2012)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, et al v. Killinger et al Doc. 87 Att. 1 1 Judge Marsha J. Pechman 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as RECEIVER of WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) KERRY K. KILLINGER, STEPHEN J. ) ROTELLA, DAVID C. SCHNEIDER, LINDA ) C. KILLINGER, and ESTHER T. ROTELLA, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) No.: 2:11-cv-00459-MJP FINAL JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO SETTLEMENT 20 21 A. Plaintiff The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver of Washington 22 Mutual Bank, and defendants Kerry K. Killinger, Stephen J. Rotella, David C. Schneider, Linda 23 C. Killinger, and Esther T. Rotella (collectively, “Defendants”) entered into a Settlement and 24 Release Agreement, dated December 13, 2011 (the “Settlement Agreement” and the terms 25 thereof, the “Settlement”) that provides for a complete dismissal with prejudice of the claims 26 27 FINAL JUDGMENT No.: 2:11-cv-00459-MJP Dockets.Justia.com . 1 asserted in the above-referenced litigation (the “Action”) against the Defendants on the terms 2 and conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 3 B. On February 15, 2012, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of 4 Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”) entered an order pursuant to Section 105(a) of the 5 Bankruptcy Code and Rule 9019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure approving the 6 Settlement Agreement and modifying the automatic stay, as necessary, to allow payment of the 7 settlement amount under the D&O insurance policies; 8 9 10 C. Unless otherwise defined in this Judgment, the capitalized terms herein shall have the same meaning as they have in the Settlement Agreement; D. Pursuant to RCW 4.22.060, the Court undertook a reasonableness determination 11 to consider whether the terms and conditions of the Settlement are fair and reasonable, the 12 product of arms’ length negotiations, and not the result of collusion; and 13 E. The Court having reviewed and considered the Settlement Agreement, all papers 14 filed and proceedings held herein in connection with the Settlement, all oral and written 15 comments received regarding the Settlement, and the record in the Action, and good cause 16 appearing therefor; 17 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: 18 1. 19 20 Jurisdiction: The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action and all parties have agreed to the personal jurisdiction of this Court with respect to this Action. 2. Reasonableness Determination and Final Dismissal of Claims: This Court 21 hereby fully and finally dismisses the Action with prejudice, and finds pursuant to RCW 22 4.22.060 that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair and reasonable, the product of arms’ length 23 negotiations, and not the result of collusion. The parties are directed to implement, perform and 24 consummate the Settlement in accordance with the terms and provisions contained in the 25 Settlement Agreement. The parties shall bear their own costs and expenses, except as otherwise 26 expressly provided in the Settlement Agreement. 27 FINAL JUDGMENT No. 2:11-cv-00459-MJP 2 . 1 3. Retention of Jurisdiction: The Settlement Agreement contains terms and 2 conditions subject to entry of this final judgment. Except as otherwise provided in the 3 Settlement Agreement, and without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any way, this Court 4 retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the parties for purposes of the administration, 5 interpretation, implementation and enforcement of the Settlement (except that the Bankruptcy 6 Court shall retain jurisdiction over the interpretation and enforcement of the Bankruptcy Court 7 order approving the Settlement). 8 9 10 4. Entry of Final Judgment: The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter promptly this final judgment resolving all matters in this case. SO ORDERED this _______ day of ______________, 2012. 11 __________________________________ The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 FINAL JUDGMENT No. 2:11-cv-00459-MJP 3 . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 2 I hereby certify that on February 24, 2012, the foregoing was electronically filed with the 3 Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all 4 counsel of record who receive CM/ECF notification, and that the remaining parties shall be 5 served in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 6 DATED this 24th day of February, 2012. 7 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 8 By s/ Steven P. Caplow Steven P. Caplow, WSBA #19843 Suite 2200 1201 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101-3045 Tel: (206) 757-8018 Fax: (206) 757-7108 E-mail: stevencaplow@dwt.com 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 FINAL JUDGMENT No. 2:11-cv-00459-MJP 4
]]>
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.
