Summary
In Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 257 Fed. Appx. 49, 51-52 (9th Cir. 2007), the Ninth Circuit reversed a lower court decision to offset a jury verdict against one defendant with the settlements of other defendants where the court did not undertake an independent allocation of the settlement payments.
Summary of this case from Grant Thornton, LLP v. Federal Deposit InsuranceOpinion
No. 06-55288.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed November 13, 2007.
Lawrence C. Fox, Marvin Wexler, Esq., Kornstein, Veisz Wexler, New York, NY, Susan J. Williams, Hennelly Grossfeld, Marina Del Rey, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Scott J. Spolin, Esq, Spolin Silverman Cohen Bartlett, Connolly Oyler, Oyler Woldman, Santa Monica, CA, Santa Monica, CA, Norman L. Hanover, Esq, Willow Glen Enterprises, San Bernardino, CA, Gary S. Soter, Esq, Wasserman, Comden Casselman, Tarzana, CA, Roy G. Weatherup, Esq, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard Smith, LLP, Shelley Kaufman, Esq, Geragos Geragos, Michael Sisson, Stanley L. Friedman, Esq, Los Angeles, CA, Roy C. Dickson, Esq, Dickson and Associates, Yorba Linda, CA, for Defendants.
Stephanie L. Krafchak, Esq, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Terry J. Hatter, Chief District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-99-08197-TJH.
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Connecticut General appeals the order of the district court declaring its $2.9 million judgment against Haya Zilka satisfied and ordering Connecticut General to refund excess payments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and reverse and remand.
The court improperly credited Zilka with the full amount of Connecticut General's settlements with seven other settling defendants without undertaking an independent allocation of the settlement payments. Sims v. DeArmond, 42 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 1994). Here, the underlying fraud was perpetrated at ten separate surgery clinics over a five-year period. The seven settling defendants engaged in fraudulent activities at different clinics and at different times; Zilka was a participant only at Westwood and only during part of the time that the fraud was occurring there. The judgment was for damages suffered on account of Zilka's activities at Westwood. This suggests that not all of the settlement payments overlap or are in common with the Zilka judgment. In these circumstances, Sims requires the court to attempt an allocation whether or not the settling parties themselves have done so. Sims, 42 F.3d at 1185.
This is not a situation where there is a single discrete injury, or where it appears impossible on the face of things for the court to make an allocation. Cf. In re Zelis, 66 F.3d 205, 210 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that there was no way to allocate the settlement absent an allocation by the parties). Nor does it matter that Connecticut General did not seek a good faith hearing; this case does not involve contribution, and Connecticut General in any event is entitled to collect damages from each of those jointly and severally liable. Finally, Zilka's objections to the extent of liability assessed based on violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act have no merit as participants in a RICO conspiracy are liable for the actions of their coconspirators. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the district court to attempt to allocate the settlements of the other settling defendants.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.