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)

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