Payne v. State of California et al

Filing 139

Findings and Recommendations recommending approval of 138 stipulation of good faith settlement between Calaveras County Defendants and Plaintiff, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 11/22/2022. Matter referred to Judge De Alba. Objections to F&R due by 12/6/2022. (Rosales, O.)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

Case No. 1:17-cv-00906-ADA-SKO
COLEMAN PAYNE,

10
11
12

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
STIPULATION OF GOOD FAITH
SETTLEMENT BETWEEN CALAVERAS
COUNTY DEFENDANTS AND
PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF CALAVERAS, ET AL.,

13

Defendants.

(Doc. 138)

14
15

14-DAY DEADLINE
_____________________________________/

16
I.

17
18

INTRODUCTION

On November 10, 2022, Plaintiff Coleman Payne, Defendants County of Calaveras, County

19 of Calaveras Sheriff’s Department, Sergeant John Bailey, Captain Eddie Bailey, and Lieutenant Tim
20 Strum (collectively referred to hereinafter as the “Calaveras County Defendants”) and Defendants
21 California Forensic Medical Group, Doctor Marsha McKay, and Joy Lynch (collectively referred to
22 hereinafter as the “CFMG Defendants”) filed a stipulation that Plaintiff’s settlement agreement with
23 the Calaveras County Defendants was made in good faith under section 877.6 of the California Code
24 of Civil Procedure (the “Stipulation”). The matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28
25 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). As discussed below, the undersigned recommends the Stipulation be
26 approved.
27
28

II.

DISCUSSION

California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 provides that any settling party in an action

1 in which it is alleged that there are two or more tortfeasors may seek a court’s determination that
2 the settlement was made in good faith. See Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assocs., 38 Cal.
3 3d 488, 494-95 (1985). To obtain a good faith determination,
4
5
6

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.
The application shall indicate the settling parties, and the basis, terms, and amount
of the settlement. The notice, application, and proposed order shall be given by
certified mail, return receipt requested.

7
8 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6(a)(2). A court’s good faith determination “shall bar any other joint
9 tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for
10 equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative
11 negligence or comparative fault.” Id. § 877.6(c). A party challenging a settlement’s good faith has
12 the burden of proof on this issue. Id. § 877.6(d). When a district court hears state law claims based
13 on supplemental jurisdiction, as here, it may make a determination of good faith settlement under
14 sections 877 and 877.6. Rodriguez v. Los Angeles Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. SACV13681AGPLAX,
15 2014 WL 12709431, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 16, 2014); see also Mason & Dixon Intermodal, Inc. v.
16 Lapmaster Int’l LLC, 632 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2011) (“When a district court sits in diversity,
17 or hears state law claims based on supplemental jurisdiction, the court applies state substantive law
18 to the state law claims...[t]his court has held that California Code of Civil Procedure section 877
19 constitutes substantive law...[t]he district court correctly applied California law to resolve ITG’s
20 motion to dismiss pursuant to good faith settlement.”) (citations omitted).
21

When no party objects to the proposed settlement, the court enter a finding of good faith

22 when presented merely with a “barebones motion” that sets forth the ground of good faith. City of
23 Grand Terrace v. Superior Court, 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1261 (1987) (“We are unaware of any
24 reported decision which has reversed an uncontested good faith determination and we, therefore,
25 conclude that only when the good faith nature of a settlement is disputed, it is incumbent upon the
26 trial court to consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors.”); Bonds v. Nicoletti Oil Inc., No. 07-cv27 1600-OWW-DLB, 2008 WL 4104272, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2008) (“Because no opposition to
28 the motion has been filed, pursuant to City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court, the Tech-Bilt factors

2

1 are not considered or weighed.”); PAG-Daly City, LLC v. Quality Auto Locators, Inc., 2014 WL
2 807415, at *2 (N.D. Cal.) (approving unopposed motion for good faith determination and finding it
3 “unnecessary to weigh the Tech-Bilt factors”).1
4

Here, notice of the settlement agreement between Plaintiff and Calaveras County Defendants

5 and the settlement amount were provided to the attorney for the non-settling CFMG Defendants.
6 (See Doc. 138 at 2.) The CFMG Defendants represent that that they do not oppose the settlement
7 agreement and agree that it was made in good faith. (See id.) Thus, in light of the parties’ consensus
8 that the pending settlement agreement was made in good faith, the undersigned finds that the
9 settlement agreement satisfies section 877.6. See City of Grand Terrace, 192 Cal. App. 3d at 1261.
10 See also Wendell v. Johnson & Johnson, No. C 09-4124 CW, 2014 WL 12644224, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
11 June 10, 2014).
12

III.

13

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS the Stipulation (Doc. 138)

14 be APPROVED, and the parties be DIRECTED to file a stipulation of voluntary dismissal
15 dismissing of all claims against the Calaveras County Defendants according to the terms set forth
16 in the settlement agreement.
17

These findings and recommendation are submitted to the district judge assigned to this

18 action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within fourteen (14)
19 days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to this findings and
20 recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be
21 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district judge
22 will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
23 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
24 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)
25
26
27
28

In making a good faith settlement determination, courts consider the following factors: (1) “a rough approximation of
plaintiffs’ total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability”; (2) “the amount paid in settlement”; (3) “the allocation
of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs”; (4) “a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if
he were found liable after trial”; (5) “the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants”; and
(6) “the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.” Tech–
Bilt Inc., 38 Cal.3d at 499 (the “Tech-Bilt factors”).
1

3

1 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 Dated:
5

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto

November 22, 2022

.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4