Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Rich
Citation: 317 F. App'x 630Docket: No. 08-35212
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; November 12, 2008; Federal Appellate Court
Peter C. McKittrick, acting as federal receiver for Pac Equities, Inc., sought approval from the district court for a partial settlement agreement reached with some defendants in three Oregon state court actions. He also requested a bar order and injunction to prevent any contribution claims against the settling defendants. Opposing this motion, Hale Lane Peek Dennison and two other non-settling defendants intervened. The district court approved the settlement and issued the requested bar order and injunction, which Hale Lane subsequently appealed. Hale Lane's appeal did not contest the settlement itself but focused on the injunction, arguing that it mandates the Oregon state court to use a pro tanto method for reducing future judgments against them, rather than other methods like proportional reduction. McKittrick countered that the district court did not impose such a restriction. The relevant section of the final judgment states that investors and the receiver must reduce their claims against non-settling defendants by the settlement amount of $890,000. During oral arguments, McKittrick reiterated his stance that the district court did not prevent Hale Lane and Garcia from seeking a greater reduction based on the settling defendants' proportionate fault. The parties agreed that the bar order and injunction should not be interpreted as requiring the pro tanto method for any future judgments against Hale Lane. The district court's judgment was affirmed, with each party bearing its own costs on appeal. This decision is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent, as per 9th Cir. R. 36-3. The district court certified the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).