Barnes v. Monument Security, Inc. et al

Filing 42

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT RD/JET, LLC'S MOTION TO DETERMINE GOOD FAITH OF SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 08/31/17. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2017)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

N'KAYLA BARNES,
Plaintiff,

9
v.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

MONUMENT SECURITY, INC.,
Defendant.

12

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

13
14

Before the Court is defendant RD/JET, LLC’s (“RD/JET”)1 Motion to Determine

15

Good Faith of Settlement, filed July 7, 2017, and supplemented August 2, 2017, by which

16

motion RD/JET seeks, pursuant to § 877.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, a

17

determination of good faith as to the settlement it has reached with plaintiff N’Kayla

18

Barnes (“Barnes”). The only other defendant named in the above-titled action,

19

Monument Security, Inc. (“Monument”), has not filed opposition, and Barnes has filed a

20

statement of non-opposition. The Court, having read and considered the papers filed in

21

support of the motion, rules as follows.2

22

Under § 877.6, a court may determine whether a settlement between a plaintiff

23

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

24

Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6(a). Federal courts exercising supplemental jurisdiction over

25
1

26
2

27
28

RD/JET is erroneously sued as Jetro Holdings, LLC.

By order filed July 14, 2017, the Court vacated the hearing on the motion and
advised the parties that the matter would stand submitted as of August 9, 2017, the date
provided for Monument to file any response to RD/JET’s supplemental filing.

1

state law claims have discretion to determine whether a settlement is in good faith under

2

this provision. See Mason & Dixon Intermodal, Inc. v. Lapmaster Int’l LLC, 632 F.3d

3

1056, 1064 (9th Cir. 2011). A determination of good faith “bar[s] any other joint tortfeasor

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

Although the California Supreme Court has set forth “a number of factors to be

8

taken into account” for purposes of determining whether a settlement was made in good

9

faith, see Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clide & Assoc., 38 Cal. 3d 488, 499 (1985), those
factors need only be “consider[ed] and weigh[ed]” where “the good faith nature of a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

settlement is disputed,” see City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court, 192 Cal. App. 3d

12

1251, 1261 (1987). Here, all parties to the above-titled action have received electronic

13

notice of the pending motion, and, as noted, no opposition has been filed. “[W]hen no

14

one objects, the barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith,

15

accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is

16

sufficient.” Id.

17

In determining whether a sufficient showing has been made, the Court considers

18

in the first instance “whether the amount of the settlement is within the reasonable range

19

of the settling tortfeasor’s proportional share of comparative liability for the plaintiff’s

20

injuries.” See Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal.3d at 499. Although the only information provided by

21

RD/JET bearing on that question is the amount of the settlement3 and the fact the

22

settlement was reached in the course of court-sponsored mediation, the Court, having

23

reviewed in addition the factual and legal issues as set forth by the parties in their

24

September 9, 2016 Joint Case Management Statement, finds the settlement was made in

25

good faith.

26
3

27
28

By order filed concurrently herewith, the Court has granted RD/JET’s motion to
seal the portion of its supplemental declaration that sets forth the amount of the
settlement. An unredacted copy of that supplemental declaration has been filed pursuant
to Civil Local Rule 79-5, and the Court has considered the amount of the settlement.
2

1

Accordingly, RD/JET’s motion is hereby GRANTED.

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: August 31, 2017
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3