X hits on this document

91 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

11 / 23

1-09-2163

for a disproportionate amount of fault if Buffalo Grove’s settlement with Cellini, the Forshalls and

Diamond were approved.

Subsequently, on that same day, July23, 2009, after a hearing on the motion, the circuit court

granted Buffalo Grove’s motion for a good-faith finding that the settlement agreement entered into

between Buffalo Grove and the three plaintiffs–Cellini, the Forshalls and Diamond–was made in

good-faith within the meaning of the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act (740 ILCS 100/1 et seq.

(West 2006)). The circuit court also dismissed with prejudice all counterclaims for contribution

against Buffalo Grove, including the May 13, 2009 counterclaims for contribution filed by the U-

Haul entities against Buffalo Grove in each of the three lawsuits brought by Cellini, the Forshalls

and Diamond. The circuit court said:

“[O]ver [the U-Haul entities’] objections and over Wheeling’s

objections, really there’s simply no basis in the record for anything

other than a good faith finding at this point.

And I understand the conundrum facing the defendants as a

former defense counsel. And you’re preaching to the choir here in

many other circumstances anyway, but this has to wait another day.

The motion [for a good-faith finding] is granted.”

The circuit court further dismissed with prejudice “all counterclaims and [t]hird-[p]arty[c]omplaints

currently pending against [Buffalo Grove]” and found, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (210

Ill. 2d R. 304(a)), that “there exists no just reason to delay enforcement or appeal of the [July 23,

2009] order.”

11

Document info
Document views91
Page views94
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 15:41:49 UTC 2016
Pages23
Paragraphs495
Words6888

Comments