Chassin Holdings Corporation v. Formula VC Ltd., et al

Filing 83

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Adopting 80 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations; and Granting 71 Joint Motion for Settlement and Good Faith Determination. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHASSIN HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 FORMULA VC LTD., et al., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; AND GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH DETERMINATION AND BARRING CLAIMS AGAINST PARTICIPATING DEFENDANTS Docket Nos. 71, 80 12 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 11 Case No. 15-cv-02294-EMC 13 14 The Court has reviewed the parties’ Joint Motion for Determination of Good Faith 15 Settlement pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 877 and 877.6 (“Motion”), Docket 16 No. 71, as well as the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation that the Motion be granted 17 in full, Docket No. 80. The Court agrees, and hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge’s 18 recommendation. 19 The Court therefore finds as follows: 20 1. The Settlement and Release Agreement (the “Settlement”) between Plaintiff 21 Chassin Holdings Corporation, on the one hand, and Defendants Formula VD Fund I, GP, L.P., 22 Formula VC Ltd., and Renata Akhunova, on the other hand (the “Participating Defendants”), a 23 copy of which is attached to the Declaration of Renata Akhunova in support of the Joint Motion, 24 was made in good faith within the meaning of Sections 877 and 877.6 of the California Code of 25 Civil Procedure. The Court notes that it has independently reviewed the factors set out in Tech- 26 Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assocs., 38 Cal. 3d 488, 499 (1985), and concludes, based on 27 those factors, that a determination of good faith is warranted. In particular, the Court notes that 28 with respect to proportional liability, the Court observes that the settlement agreement calls for the 1 Participating Defendants to pay $100,000, while Plaintiff anticipates requesting a default judgment 2 against the nonparticipating Defendant Andrey Kessel in excess of $1 million. Motion at 7. This 3 disparity is justified in light of the uncontroverted allegations that Mr. Kessel was primarily 4 responsible for the wrongful conduct alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint and was substantially more 5 culpable than Participating Defendants. 6 2. Notice has been given to all non-settling defendants. 7 3. Good cause appears to grant the Joint Motion and approve the relief requested 8 9 10 Upon the foregoing reasons and findings, the Court hereby: ORDERS that the Joint Motion for Good Faith Determination is GRANTED in its entirety; 12 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 11 therein. FURTHER ORDERS that the Settlement is APPROVED; 13 FURTHER ORDERS that all claims against the Participating Defendants for contribution 14 and/or indemnity by any other party to this Action or any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor 15 related to the claims that were presented or could have been presented in this Action are hereby 16 BARRED; and 17 FURTHER ORDERS that any and all claims, cross claims, or counterclaims asserted 18 between Plaintiff, on the one hand, and the Participating Defendants, on the other, are hereby 19 DISMISSED with prejudice. 20 This order disposes of Docket Nos. 71 and 80. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 25 26 Dated: September 21, 2016 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 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?