X hits on this document

82 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

10 / 23

1-09-2163

On June 23, 2009, Wheeling filed a motion to dismiss counts V and VI of the third amended

complaints filed by Cellini, the Forshalls and Diamond, by assertingvarious tort immunitydefenses.

On June 24, 2009, Wheeling filed a motion to dismiss count V of the U-Haul entities’

counterclaim for contribution against Wheeling.

On July 6, 2009, theU-Haul entities filed a response in opposition of Buffalo Grove’s motion

for a good-faith finding, arguing that the settlement terms were not entered into in good faithbecause

“both Lewis’ reckless driving and the decision of the Buffalo Grove police officers to chase Lewis

at high speeds through residential neighborhoods” were the direct cause of Cellini’s and Brandon

Forshall’s injuries, and a direct cause of injuries resulting in the death of Corey Diamond. Further,

the U-Haul entities argued that Buffalo Grove’s combined settlement of $1,550,000 with Cellini, the

Forshalls and Diamond was disproportionately low compared to the damages in excess of $10

million that would likely be sought at trial against the U-Haul entities, as the nonsettling defendants.

The U-Haul entities argued that the “courts should examine all settlements with utmost scrutiny” and

requested that the circuit court deny Buffalo Grove’s motion for a good-faith finding.

On July 23, 2009, a hearing was held before the circuit court on Buffalo Grove’s motion for

a good-faith finding. At the hearing, the U-Haul entities requested that the circuit court denyBuffalo

Grove’s motion for a good-faith finding and to “let discovery go forward as to the nature of

[Cellini’s] recovery from his brain injury, discovery as to the actual involvement of Buffalo Grove

and then at some point have an evidentiary hearing as to see *** whether the circumstances justify

[a good-faith finding].” Likewise, at the hearing, Wheeling opposed Buffalo Grove’s motion for a

good-faith finding by arguing that Wheeling, as a nonsettling defendant, could be held liable at trial

10

Document info
Document views82
Page views85
Page last viewedMon Dec 05 19:17:22 UTC 2016
Pages23
Paragraphs495
Words6888

Comments