Spitzer et al v. Aljoe et al

Filing 147

PRELIMINARY ORDER re 135 Application for Good Faith Settlement Determination. Any objection from J. Benjamin McGrew due by 10/15/2015. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 10/8/2015. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 THOMAS A. SPITZER, et al., Case No. 13-cv-05442-MEJ Plaintiffs, 8 PRELIMINARY ORDER RE: GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT HEARING v. 9 10 TRISHA A. ALJOE, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 135 Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 On August 7, 2015, Plaintiffs Thomas “Leroy” Spitzer and Craig Spitzer (“Plaintiffs”) and 14 Defendants City of Pleasanton, Trisha Aljoe, Jonathan Lowell, George Thomas, Walter 15 Wickboldt, Officer Ryan Tujague, and Robert Leong (“City Defendants”) engaged in court- 16 ordered mediation, which resulted in a settlement agreement. Dkt. No. 135 at 5. Pending before 17 the Court is the City Defendants’ Application for a Good Faith Settlement Determination pursuant 18 to California Civil Code sections 877 and 877.6. Dkt. No. 136. The Court held a hearing on the 19 matter on October 8, 2015. 20 In addition to the City Defendants’ Application, on September 12, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a 21 Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration with respect to the Court’s Order denying 22 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint, or in the alternative for Leave to 23 File a Motion for Leave to Amend. Dkt. No. 139. Specifically, Plaintiffs sought to re-assert 24 claims against a former Defendant, J. Benjamin McGrew, whom the Court previously dismissed. 25 Id.; see Dkt. No. 44 (Order re: Mot. to Dismiss McGrew). The Court recently granted that Motion 26 in part, permitting Plaintiffs Leave to File a Motion to Amend their Complaint, on the basis that 27 Plaintiffs may possess facts establishing a viable claim against McGrew. Dkt. No. 145. 28 Given the Court’s decision to allow Plaintiffs to file a motion to amend, and the potential 1 that McGrew may re-enter these proceedings, the Court ordered the City Defendants to be 2 prepared to discuss at the October 8 hearing the potential impact of McGrew’s re-entry to this case 3 on their Application for a Good Faith Settlement Determination, paying particular importance to 4 the proportionality factor. Dkt. No. 146. As McGrew may also be affected by the City 5 Defendants’ Good Faith Settlement Determination, the Court ordered him to attend the hearing 6 and be prepared to meaningfully discuss the City Defendants’ Application. 7 At the October 8, 2015 hearing on the City Defendants’ Application, the Court indicated 8 its preliminary approval of the application. However, as McGrew did not attend the hearing, the 9 Court shall give him a final opportunity to raise any objections. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS McGrew to file any objections, up to five (5) pages, by October 15, 2015. No chambers copy is 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 required. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 15 16 Dated: October 8, 2015 ______________________________________ MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?