The benefit is based on that obligor’s virile share, not Solidarily liable obligor, the settlement “benefits the other solidary obligors in the amount of the In the event of a settlement between an obligee and a To be quantified, regardless of settlement. Show that the defendants in this case are solidarily liable, the liability of all defendants will have To the grounds asserted by the defendant for that contention. “continuing settlement and litigation strategy.” Id. The court also cited the possible impact on the defendant’s Mississippi law 1 to jointly and severally liable co-defendants would be similar under Louisiana
The SLD Defendants do not explain whether the entitlement to a credit of set-off under The court ordered the production of settlement agreements due to the potential for a credit or setoff. With respect to the relevance of the terms of any settlement agreements to the SLDĭefendants’ solidary liability relative to the non-moving defendants, they rely on Carl E. Impact on the SLD Defendants’ continuing settlement and litigation strategy. The SLD Defendants seek to compel the production of settlement agreements entered intoīetween cross-claimants and non-moving defendants and contend that the terms of any settlementĪgreements are relevant for two purposes: (1) such information bears on the SLD Defendants’Īlleged solidary liability for any judgment entered against them and (2) they are likely to have an For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED. The motion seeks expedited consideration given the forthcoming deadline for submission QBE InsuranceĬorporation joined the motion. “the SLD Defendants”) seeking an order compelling the disclosure of any settlement agreementsĮntered into between cross-claimants and non-moving cross-claim defendants. Properties, LLC RR Company of America, LLC and Robert Daigle (referred to collectively as 696) filed by cross-claim defendants Southern Lifestyleĭevelopment, LLC SLD Aircraft, LLC Rodney L. Case 6:20-cv-00571-SMH-DJA Document 702 Filed 02/28/23 of 4 PageID #: 31464īefore the Court is “Defendants’ Motion to Compel Settlement Agreements with Requestįor Expedited Consideration” (Rec.
0 kommentar(er)
