Hall et al v. City of Fairfield et al

Filing 64

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 9/21/2011 GRANTING In-N-Out Burger and Marc L. Young's 39 amended motion to find good faith settlement agreement. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

MARKUS M. HALL, an individual;
MONIQUE G. RANKIN, an
individual; and LINDSEY K.
SANDERS, an individual,

9

Plaintiffs,

10
11

v.

23

CITY OF FAIRFIELD, a California
municipal corporation; OFFICER
NICK McDOWELL, individually and
in his capacity as a police
officer with the CITY OF
FAIRFIELD; OFFICER CHRIS GRIMM,
individually and in his capacity
as a police officer with the
CITY OF FAIRFIELD; OFFICER TOM
SHACKFORD, individually and in
his capacity as a police officer
with the CITY OF FAIRFIELD;
OFFICER ZACK SANDOVAL,
individually and in his
capacity as a police officer
with the CITY OF FAIRFIELD;
SERGEANT STEVE CRANE,
individually and in his capacity
as a police officer with the
CITY OF FAIRFIELD; IN-N-OUT
BURGER, a California
corporation; and MARC L. YOUNG,
an individual; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive,

24

Defendants.
________________________________

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

25
26

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:10-cv-00508-GEB-DAD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS INN-OUT BURGER AND MARC L.
YOUNG’S MOTION TO FIND GOOD
FAITH SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT*

Defendants In-N-Out Burger and Marc L. Young (the “settling
defendants”) seek a judicial declaration of good faith settlement under

27
28

*

This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral
argument. E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).
1

1

California Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6. (ECF No. 39.)

2

The settlement agreement is filed as Docket Number 39-1. “[A]ll parties

3

[to this action] have stipulated to the Court entering an order finding

4

that the settlement is in ‘good faith’ and that it meets the standards

5

under California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 877 and 877.6.” (Mot.

6

5:7-9.)

7
8

Section 877.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure
prescribes:

9

12

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

13

Cal. Code Civ. P. § 877.6(c). Whether a settlement is made in “good

14

faith” within the meaning of section 877.6 is determined based on the

15

factors identified by the California Supreme Court in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v.

16

Woodward-Clyde & Assoc., 38 Cal. 3d 488 (1985), including: (i) a rough

17

approximation

18

proportionate liability; (ii) the amount paid in settlement; (iii) the

19

allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (iv) a recognition

20

that the settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were

21

found liable after trial; (v) the financial conditions and insurance

22

policy

23

collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of

24

non-settling defendants. Id. at 499.

10
11

25

limits

The

of

of

plaintiff’s

settling

settling

total

recovery

defendants;

defendants

have

and

and

(vi)

entered

the

into

the

settlor’s

existence

a

of

settlement

26

agreement with Plaintiffs which “provides that In-N-Out and Mr. Young

27

will cause to be paid to Plaintiff the amount of One Hundred Eighty

28

Thousand Dollars ($180,000.00) as a full and final resolution of all
2

1

claims arising out of or relating to the allegations by Plaintiffs in

2

this action[.]” (Mot. 3:11-14.) “Plaintiffs contend that [the settling

3

defendants] are liable for damages sustained as a result of a wrongful

4

citizen’s arrest which resulted in a violation of their civil rights”

5

and “[a]s a result of the evidence in this case, the parties believe

6

that

7

circumstances.”

the

$180,000.00

settlement

is

fair

and

reasonable

under

the

Id. 7:14-16, 19-21.

8

“The first [Tech-Bilt] factor, an approximation of recovery

9

and potential liability, is the most important.” AmeriPride Serv., Inc.

10

v.

11

S-04-1494-LKK/JFM, 2007 WL 1946635, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 2, 2007). “The

12

settlement amount need only be ‘in the ballpark’ [to satisfy this

13

factor], with any party challenging a settlement having the burden of

14

establishing that it is so far out of the ballpark that the equitable

15

objectives of section 877 are not satisfied.” Id. Here, the settlement

16

agreement is within the “ballpark” of a “rough approximation” of the

17

Plaintiffs’ total recovery and the settling defendants’ proportionate

18

liability. Further, there is no evidence that the settling parties

19

engaged in collusion, fraud, or other conduct seeking to impose an undue

20

share

21

settlement agreement qualifies as a good faith settlement within the

22

meaning of section 877.6. Therefore, the settling defendants’ motion is

23

GRANTED.

24

Dated:

Valley

of

Indust.

liability

Serv.,

on

the

Inc.,

Nos.

non-settling

CIV.

parties.

S-00-113-LKK

Accordingly,

September 21, 2011

25
26
27

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

28
3

JFM,

the