Montoya v. SLM Corporation et al

Filing 70

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti granting 65 Motion for Settlement (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/6/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

MARLON MONTOYA, individually and ) Case No. 3:14-CV-00287-SC
on behalf of all others
)
similarly situated,
) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
) MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH
) SETTLEMENT
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
SLM CORPORATION; SALLIE MAE,
)
INC.; and GENESYS
)
TELECOMMUNICATIONS LABORATORIES, )
INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

18
19

Now before the Court is Plaintiff Marlon Montoya's motion for

20

determination of good faith settlement by and between Plaintiff and

21

Defendant Genesys Telecommunications ("Genesys") (the "Genesys

22

Settlement").

23

No. 66) and is appropriate for resolution without oral argument

24

pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b).

25

the other defendants in this case (ECF No. 64), and those

26

defendants have not objected to the Genesys Settlement.

27

reasons provided below, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED.

28

ECF No. 69 ("Mot.").

The motion is unopposed (ECF

Plaintiff has already settled with
For the

This action arises from Plaintiff's claim that he received

telephone dialing system without his prior express consent in

3

violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227

4

(the "TCPA").

5

("SLM") and Sallie Mae, through their agent Genesys, sent text

6

messages seeking to collect an alleged student loan debt.

7

United States District Court

calls and text messages on his cellular telephone from an automatic

2

For the Northern District of California

1

Plaintiff settled and the Court dismissed all claims against SLM

8

and Sallie Mae on May 28, 2015.

9

an order to confirm a settlement agreement with Genesys as a good

10

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants SLM Corporation

A month later, Plaintiff moved for

faith settlement.
When a plaintiff settles with one or more alleged tortfeasors,

11
12

California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 authorizes the

13

Court to determine that the settlement was made in good faith, and

14

that all claims against the settling party for contribution or

15

indemnity are barred:

16

[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 . . . . Within 25 days of the mailing of the
notice, application, and proposed order, or within 20
days of personal service, a nonsettling party may file a
notice of motion to contest the good faith of the
settlement. If none of the nonsettling parties files a
motion within 25 days of mailing of the notice,
application, and proposed order, or within 20 days of
personal service, the court may approve the settlement.

17
18
19
20
21
22

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

23
24
25

The California Supreme Court has held that the purpose of

26
27

California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 is to promote the

28

///

2

1

equitable sharing of costs among parties at fault and to encourage

2

settlements.

3

488, 495 (1985) (approving River Garden Farms v. Superior Court, 26

4

C.A.3d 986 (1972)).

See Tech-Bilt v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates, 38 C.3d

The determination of whether a settlement is in good faith is

5

United States District Court

left to the sound discretion of the trial court.

7
For the Northern District of California

6

court may inquire, among other things, "whether the amount of the

8

settlement is within the reasonable range of the settling

9

tortfeasor's proportional share of comparative liability for the

10

plaintiff's injuries."

11

The

good faith requirement

12

The policies underlying the

require that a number of factors be taken into account
including a rough approximation of plaintiffs' total
recovery and the settlor's proportionate liability, the
amount paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement
proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a
settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he
were found liable after a trial. Other relevant
considerations include the financial conditions and
insurance policy limits of settling defendants, as well
as the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct
aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.

13
14
15
16
17
18

Id. at 499.

Id. at 501.

Id.
Here, Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss all individual claims

19
20

against Genesys with prejudice and all class action claims without

21

prejudice.

22

right or claims he may have to serve as a class representative or

23

named plaintiff in any class-action suit brought against Genesys

24

relating to any claims set forth or which could have been set forth

25

in this litigation.

26

Plaintiff $2,000 and Plaintiff's counsel $13,000.

Plaintiff further waives and releases any

Id.

In consideration, Genesys agrees to pay
Id.

Plaintiff has already settled with the other defendants in

27
28

Mot. at 4.

///

3

1

this case, and the other defendants have neither objected to the

2

Genesys Settlement nor opposed this motion.

3

therefore will not result in an inequitable sharing of costs among

4

defendants, nor is it "the product of collusion, fraud, or tortious

5

conduct aimed to injure the interests" of the other defendants.

6

Tech-Bilt, 38 C.3d at 499.

The Genesys Settlement

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

7

The Genesys Settlement, however, does not reflect the

8

principle "that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he

9

would if he were found liable after a trial."

Tech-Bilt, 38 C.3d

10

at 499.

The TCPA provides statutory damages in the amount of $500

11

per violation.

12

he received three unauthorized text messages, making the agreed

13

upon settlement -- a total of $15,000 ($13,000 of which will go to

14

Plaintiff's attorney) -- far larger than Plaintiff's potential

15

recovery at trial.

47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).

Plaintiff alleges that

16

Nevertheless, the Court finds the Genesys Settlement to have

17

been made in good faith insofar as it is consistent with the dual

18

purposes of California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 to

19

promote the equitable sharing of costs among parties and to

20

encourage settlements.

21

See Id. at 495.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated: August 6, 2015

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28

4