Barnes v. Monument Security, Inc. et al

Filing 39

ORDER VACATING HEARING ON DEFENDANT RD/JET, LLC'S MOTION TO DETERMINE GOOD FAITH OF SETTLEMENT; DIRECTIONS TO RD/JET, LLC. The August 11, 2017 hearing on RD/JET LLC's Motion to Determine Good Faith of Settlement is vacated. If RD/JE T, LLC wishes to proceed with the motion, it is directed to file and serve on all parties, no later than August 2, 2017, one or more supplemental declarations, setting forth the amount of the settlement and an explanation as to why it is adequate. I n the event such supplemental materials are filed, Monument may file, no later than August 9, 2017, a response thereto, and, unless the parties are otherwise advised, the motion will stand submitted as of that date. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 07/26/17. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2017)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

N'KAYLA BARNES,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.
MONUMENT SECURITY, INC.,
Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-03281-MMC
ORDER VACATING HEARING ON
DEFENDANT RD/JET, LLC’S MOTION
TO DETERMINE GOOD FAITH OF
SETTLEMENT; DIRECTIONS TO
RD/JET, LLC
Re: Dkt. No. 37

12
13

Before the Court is the Motion to Determine Good Faith Settlement, filed July 7,

14

2017, by defendant RD/JET, LLC (“RD/JET”), erroneously sued as Jetro Holdings, LLC,

15

by which RD/JET seeks, pursuant to section 877.6 of the California Code of Civil

16

Procedure, a determination of good faith as to the settlement it has reached with plaintiff

17

N’Kayla Barnes (“Barnes”). On July 21, 2017, Barnes filed a statement of non-

18

opposition. No opposition or statement of non-opposition has been filed by Monument

19

Security, Inc. (“Monument”), the only other defendant named in the above-titled action.

20

Having read and considered the papers filed in support of the motion, the Court hereby

21

VACATES the August 11, 2017, hearing and rules as follows.

22

Under section 877.6, a court may determine a settlement between a plaintiff “and

23

one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors” was made in good faith. See Cal. Code

24

Civ. Proc. § 877.6(a). A determination of good faith “bar[s] any other joint tortfeasor or

25

co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable

26

comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative

27

negligence or comparative fault.” See id. § 877.6(c).

28

Here, given Monument’s lack of response to the motion, it would appear that the

1

sole non-settling defendant does not anticipate bringing a claim for contribution or

2

indemnity. Nevertheless, the Court, on the possibility such a claim could be brought, has

3

reviewed the record provided to date by the parties, and finds the record contains

4

insufficient evidence upon which to make the requested determination.

5

Accordingly, if RD/JET wishes to proceed with the instant motion, it is hereby

6

DIRECTED to file and serve on all parties, no later than August 2, 2017, one or more

7

supplemental declarations, setting forth the amount of the settlement and an explanation

8

as to why it is adequate.1 In the event such supplemental materials are filed, Monument

9

may file, no later than August 9, 2017, a response thereto, and, unless the parties are

10

otherwise advised, the motion will stand submitted as of that date.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: July 26, 2017
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

In its motion, RD/JET states the settlement agreement is “confidential.” (See
Mot. at 3:23.) If, in connection with any supplemental submission, a sealing motion is
filed, RD/JET is advised that it “must make a particularized showing that specific harm or
prejudice will result if the information [it seeks to file under seal] is disclosed.” See, e.g.,
Select Portfolio Servicing v. Valentino, No. C 12-0334 SI, 2013 WL 1800039, at *2 (N.D.
Cal. Apr. 29, 2013) (discussing sufficiency of showing made in support of request to file
under seal materials submitted in connection with motion for determination of good faith
settlement).
2