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)

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