Langley et al v. Guiding Hands School, Inc. et al
Filing
335
ORDER signed by District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta on 1/24/25 GRANTING 321 Motion for Good Faith Determination and VACATING the 02/6/25 hearing. (Deputy Clerk VLC)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
STACIA LANGLEY, et al.,
12
Plaintiffs,
13
14
15
v.
No. 2:20-cv-00635-DJC-CSK
ORDER
GUIDING HANDS SCHOOL, Inc., et
al.,
Defendants.
16
Currently pending before the Court is a Motion for Good Faith Settlement
17
18
Determination pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 877.6. (Mot.
19
(ECF No. 321-1).) This Motion is filed by Elk Grove School District Defendants (Elk
20
Grove Unified School District, Elk Grove SELPA, Doug Phillips, and Marilyn Delgado),
21
Folsom County School District Defendants (Folsom Cordova Unified School District,
22
Folsom Cordova SELPA, Betty Jo Wessinger, Kim Triguero, and Meghan Magee), and
23
Pollock Pines Elementary School District Defendants (Pollock Pines Elementary School
24
District, Pat Atkins, and Licia McDonald) based on settlements that were reached with
25
Plaintiffs M.S., Melanie Stark, D.Z., Laura Kinser, S.D., and Christopher Davis. No party
26
has opposed this Motion. (See ECF Nos. 327, 328 (statements of non-opposition).)
27
////
28
////
1
1
The Court takes this matter under submission without oral argument.1 See Local Rule
2
230(g); see also Cal. Civ. Pro. Code § 866.6(b).
3
The Court is obligated to apply state substantive law to state law claims for
4
which it has diversity or supplemental jurisdiction. Mason & Dixon Intermodal, Inc. v.
5
Lapmaster Int'l LLC, 632 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2011). This includes application of
6
Code of Civil Procedure Section 877.6. Id. Section 877.6 provides that where an
7
action involves two or more joint tortfeasors, a party may move for the court to
8
determine that a settlement was made in good faith. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6.
9
Should the court find that the settlement was made in good faith, a joint tortfeasor is
10
barred “from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for
11
equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on
12
comparative negligence or comparative fault.” Id. § 866.6(c). To determine if a
13
settlement is made in good faith, the Court utilizes the Tech-Bilt factors which require
14
the Court to consider: (1) a rough approximation of the plaintiff's total recovery and
15
the settlors' proportional liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) the allocation
16
of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (4) the recognition that a settlor should pay
17
less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after trial; (5) the financial
18
conditions and insurance policy limits of the settling tortfeasor; and (6) the existence
19
of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct intended to injure the interests of the non-
20
settling parties. See Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assocs., 38 Cal. 3d 488
21
(1985).
22
Where the good faith nature of a settlement is not in dispute, the Court need
23
not consider the Tech-Bilt factors. City of Grand Terrace v. Super. Ct. of San
24
Bernardino Cnty., 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1261 (1987); see Geo Guidance Drilling
25
Services, Inc. v. Renaissance Res., LLC, No. 1:20-cv-00465-CDB, 2023 WL 5020479, at
26
No party has objected to the Court lifting the stay of this action for the limited purpose of considering
this Motion. As such, the Court will do so. Nothing about this order should be construed as lifting the
stay for any other purpose beyond the limited purposes for which the Court previously ordered the stay
lifted. (See ECF No. 319.)
1
27
28
2
1
*2 (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2023); see also Cal. Civ. Pro. Code § 866.6(d). No party has
2
opposed or disputed the good faith nature of this settlement. Thus, the Court need
3
not apply the Tech-Bilt factors in approving Defendants’ Motion. However, out of an
4
abundance of caution, the Court has read the motion and declarations provided to
5
the Court and considered them under the Tech-Bilt factors. Having done so, the Court
6
finds that the settlement to be made in good faith.
7
The settlement is composed of three related settlements between school
8
district Defendants and the relevant Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs M.S. and Melanie Stark have
9
settled their claims with Elk Grove School District Defendants for $75,000, Plaintiffs
10
D.Z. and Laura Kinser’s settlement is with Folsom County School District Defendants
11
for $55,000, and Plaintiffs S.D. and Christopher Davis settled their claims against
12
Pollock Pines Elementary School District Defendants for $35,000. (Mot. at 11.) Each
13
of these settlement amounts includes attorney’s fees and costs. Given the relatively
14
limited involvement of the school district Defendants in Plaintiffs’ claims, these
15
amounts appear reasonably proportional to the potential liability associated with
16
these Defendants. See City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Ct. of San Bernardino Cnty.,
17
192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1260 (1987) (a settlement to be made in good faith must only
18
be within a reasonable range of relative liabilities); see also Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal. 3d at 501
19
n.9. The Court notes that this settlement was reached before pleadings have been
20
finalized and that settling Defendants have motions to dismiss pending that remain
21
unresolved due to the stay of this action that has been in place. (See ECF Nos. 141,
22
142, 144.) The Court also acknowledges the settling parties should pay less in
23
settlement than they would if they were found liable at trial. There is no indication that
24
the settlement were the product of collusion, fraud, or other improper conduct; they
25
were the result of a multi-day global mediation with a neutral mediator.2 (Mot. at 1.)
26
27
28
The Court also notes that it previously considered and approved the minor’s compromise of Plaintiffs
M.S. and S.D. related to these settlements, though the Court is limited in what it can consider in ruling
on a motion for approval of minor’s compromise. (See ECF Nos. 313, 314.)
2
3
1
The settlement satisfies the Tech-Bilt factors and thus the Court determines that it is
2
made in good faith within the meaning of Section 877.6.
3
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
4
1. Defendants’ Motion for Good Faith Determination (ECF No. 321) is
5
GRANTED;
6
2. Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6, the settlement
7
agreement of the parties constitutes a good faith settlement; and
8
3. The hearing current scheduled for February 6, 2025, at 1:30 a.m. in
9
Courtroom 7 before Judge Daniel J. Calabretta is VACATED.3
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12
Dated:
January 24, 2025
Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
DJC1 – langley20cv00635.gfs
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
All other scheduled hearing dates remain and are not altered by this order.
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?