Athwal et al v. County of Stanislaus et al

Filing 182

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/17/22 as to the settlement between plaintiffs Baljit Athwal and Daljit Atwal and defendants Turlock and Ceres. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Bradley J. Swingle, SBN 171535
Amanda J. Heitlinger, SBN 271469
ARATA, SWINGLE, VAN EGMOND & HEITLINGER
A Professional Law Corporation
1207 I Street
Post Office Box 3287
Modesto, California 95354
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY OF CERES, CITY OF TURLOCK, TIMOTHY REDD

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

BALJIT ATHWAL; NAVNEET ATHWAL;
DALJIT ATWAL;
Plaintiffs,
vs.
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS; CITY OF
TURLOCK; CITY OF MODESTO; CITY OF
CERES; STANISLAUS COUNTY OFFICE
OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY; KIRK
BUNCH; JON EVERS; TIMOTHY REDD;
DALE LINGERFELT; STEVE JACOBSON;
BIRGIT FLADAGER; GALEN CARROLL;
PAUL EDWARD JONES,

19
20
21

Case No: 1:15-CV-00311-TLN-BAM
Honorable Troy L. Nunley
STIPULATION RE DETERMINATION OF
GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT OF
DEFENDANTS CITY OF CERES, CITY OF
TURLOCK AND TIMOTHY REDD
WITH PLAINTIFFS

Defendants.
______________________________/
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between plaintiffs, BALJIT ATHWAL and DALJIT

22

ATWAL (hereafter “PLAINTIFFS” when referred to collectively), defendants COUNTY OF

23

STANISLAUS, STANISLAUS COUNTY OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, KIRK

24

BUNCH, DALE LINGERFELT, STEVE JACOBSON, and BIRGIT FLADAGER (hereafter

25

“COUNTY”), defendants CITY OF TURLOCK and TIMOTHY REDD (hereafter “TURLOCK”),

26

defendants CITY OF MODESTO, JON EVERS, and GALEN CARROLL (hereafter “MODESTO”),

27

and defendant CITY OF CERES (hereafter “CERES”), as follows:

28

1.

TURLOCK and CERES are defendants in this action.

STIPULATION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT AND ORDER THEREON - 1

1

2.

TURLOCK and CERES have reached an agreement with PLAINTIFFS to pay to them

2

the total sum of $25,000.00, with BALJIT ATHWAL receiving $20,000.00 and DALJIT ATWAL

3

receiving $5,000.00, in exchange for a dismissal of PLAINTIFFS’ Claims against TURLOCK and

4

CERES.

5

3.

PLAINTIFFS, COUNTY, MODESTO, TURLOCK, and CERES all hereby agree and

6

stipulate that the settlement between PLAINTIFFS, TURLOCK, and CERES is in good faith pursuant

7

to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6.

8
9

4.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 877 et. seq. governs the determination of

whether the settlement entered into by and between PLAINTIFFS, TURLOCK, and CERES is in

10

good faith. A settling party may seek a determination that a settlement was made in good faith under

11

California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 in federal court. Fed. Sav. &Loan Ins. Corp. v.

12

Butler, 904 F.2d 505, 511 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that while the “section 877.6 procedures do not

13

govern a federal action . . . the substantive provisions. . . are applicable”); Jette v. Orange Cnty., Fin.,

14

Inc., No. 2:08-cv-01767 GEB KJM, 2010 WL 3341561, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2010); Maxwell v.

15

MortgageIT, Inc., No. 1:08-CV-01329 OWW SKO, 2010 WL 2219190, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 1,

16

2010) (stating that “federal courts may enter . . . determinations” under section 877.6); Sunterra Corp.

17

v. Perini Bldg. Co., No. 2:04-cv-00784 MCE EFB, 2009 WL 2136108, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 15,

18

2009) (stating that “[a] district court may properly consult the provisions of §877.6 in determining

19

whether an early settlement meets the requisite good faith scrutiny”).

20

Section 877.6 provides:

21

(a)(1) Any party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint
tortfeasors . . . shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith of a
settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged
tortfeasors . . ., upon giving notice . . . .

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(2) In the alternative, a settling party may give notice of settlement to all parties and
to the court, together with an application for determination of good faith settlement
and a proposed order. . . .
(b) The issue of the good faith of a settlement may be determined by the court on the
basis of affidavits served with the notice of hearing, and any counteraffidavits filed in
response, or the court may, in its discretion, receive other evidence at the hearing.
(c) A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar
any other joint tortfeasor . . . from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor . . .

STIPULATION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT AND ORDER THEREON - 2

1
2

for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on
comparative negligence or comparative fault.

3

(d) The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that
issue.

4

California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6.

5

Here, this application is unopposed and is stipulated to by all of the parties in this litigation.

6

5.

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6, all further

7

Claims against TURLOCK and CERES for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or

8

comparative indemnity, shall be barred.

9

DATED: March 17, 2022

10
11

By
/s/ Bradley J. Swingle
Bradley J. Swingle
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY OF CERES, CITY OF TURLOCK
TIMOTHY REDD

12
13
14

DATED: March 17, 2022

15

17

19

DATED: March 17, 2022

20

22

24
25
26
27
28

ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH

By
/s/ Patrick D. Moriarty (authorized per email)
Patrick D. Moriarty
Attorneys for Defendants
CITY OF MODESTO, CHIEF GALEN
CARROLL and DETECTIVE JON EVERS

21

23

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
By:
/s/ Arturo J. Gonzalez (authorized per email)
Arturo J. Gonzalez
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BALJIT ATHWAL and DALJIT ATWAL

16

18

ARATA, SWINGLE, VAN EGMOND & HEITLINGER
A Professional Law Corporation

DATED: March 17, 2022

PORTER SCOTT, APC
By
/s/ John R. Whitefleet (authorized per email)
John R. Whitefleet
Attorneys for Defendants
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, STANISLAUS
COUNTY OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
KIRK BUNCH, DALE LINGERFELT, STEVE
JACOBSON and BIRGIT FLADAGER

STIPULATION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT AND ORDER THEREON - 3

1
2

ORDER
GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN AND THE PARTIES HAVING STIPULATED

3

TO THE SAME, the Court finds that the above-stated Stipulation is and shall be the Order of the

4

Court. The settlement between plaintiffs BALJIT ATHWAL, DALJIT ATWAL, TURLOCK, and

5

CERES is hereby deemed to be a good faith settlement within the meaning and effect of California

6

Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6. Any further claims of any joint tortfeasors or co-

7

obligors relating to the subject matter of this lawsuit against TURLOCK and CERES for equitable

8

comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or

9

comparative fault are hereby forever barred and dismissed with prejudice pursuant to California Code

10

of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (c).

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15

DATED: March 17, 2022
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STIPULATION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT AND ORDER THEREON - 4