C. HANSON, United States District Judge.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on SE's Motion to Allow Offset to Prevent Double Recovery by Summit (Docket No. 167). The Court, having considered the applicable case law and briefs of the parties, for the reasons that follow, concludes that the motion is not well taken and shall be denied.
This lawsuit was consolidated with a case styled Summit Electric Supply Co., Inc. v. Baan USA, Inc., CIV No. 00-0378 LH/JHG. On August 14, 2001, Summit and Baan entered into a settlement agreement, and filed a stipulated dismissal of that action.According to SE, both Summit and Baan have refused to disclose the terms of that settlement agreement to SE. The stipulated dismissal between Summit and Baan stated that "all matters in controversy for which suit was brought [had been] fully settled and compromised." (Docket No. 180 in CIV No. 00-378 LH/JHG).
S.E. argues that the $3 million verdict in this case should be offset by the amount of compensatory damages received by Summit in its settlement with Baan, to avoid a double recovery of damages by Summit. S.E. characterizes the damages Summit sought in the consolidated litigation as follows: (1)the amount paid to Baan for the software, (2)the amount paid to S.E. for implementation of that software, and (3)the cost to Summit of dedicating a number of employees to the implementation and training to use the software(S.E. Mot. at 3).
S.E. urges the Court to conclude that the stipulated dismissal between Summit and Baan, entered before trial in the instant case, in fact covered and included Summit's claims against SE:
The stipulation plainly states that all matters in controversy — which would include Summit's claims for compensatory damages related to the implementation project — were fully settled. Because the damages sought by Summit against S.E. Tech were wholly or partially satisfied by Summit's settlement with Baan, this Court should offset Summit's judgment against S.E. accordingly.
(S.E.'s Mot.at 4).
Further, S.E. argues,
It is undisputed that Summit has already received compensatory damages from Baan relating to the software implementation project at Summit that formed the bases for its Complaint against Baan and its Countercomplaint against SE.
(S.E.'s Mot. at 5).
I am unpersuaded that Summit's settlement with Baan did in fact cover Summit's claims for compensatory damages related to the implementation project. Given the confidential nature of the settlement, there is no evidence before the Court as to what was covered by the terms of the settlement between Summit and Baan.Summit indicated in its brief that the settlement resolved Summit's claim for a refund of Baan software license and maintenance fees, prejudgment interest on those fees, and attorneys' fees and costs, as well as for treble damages under the Unfair Practices Act and punitive damages for fraud. While this representation of Summit's counsel does not constitute evidence that can be relied on by the Court, it merely illustrates that S.E. has made an overly broad, unsubstantiated argument that it has not, and can not prove, i.e., that the claim for implementation services was resolved by the settlement.
In contrast, I am persuaded by the arguments of Summit, which are fourfold: (1)that S.E. and Baan were not "joint tortfeasors", and consequently S.E. is not entitled to a credit under the New Mexico Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act; (2)that the settlement monies Summit received from Baan were from a "collateral source", and that S.E. is not entitled to a credit or offset for monies received from a collateral source; (3) that an allowance to S.E. of a credit or offset would undermine the policy favoring settlement of legal disputes, because S.E. should not be the beneficiary of a settlement in which it did not participate; and, (4)that the total damages Summit claimed exceeded the amount of the jury verdict, and consequently there is no "double recovery" in this case.
For these reasons, I find no merit in SE's motion and conclude that it must be denied.
WHEREFORE, SE's Motion to Allow Offset to Prevent Double Recovery by Summit (Docket No. 167) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.