Savin v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 129

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 114 Motion for Settlement. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2018) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2018) Correction of Dkt. No. 128.

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
KATHARINE SAVIN,

7

Plaintiff,

8

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

v.

9

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,

10
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-05627-JST

Re: ECF No. 114

Defendants.

12
Before the Court is Defendant The Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco’s

13
14

motion for good faith settlement. ECF No. 114. The Court will grant the motion and find the

15

settlement was made in good faith.

16

I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Katherine Savin filed a lawsuit against the Archdiocese of San Francisco,1 the

17
18

City and County of San Francisco (CCSF), Father Bruce Lery and other defendants alleging

19

constitutional violations under section 1983; violations under The Fair Employment and Housing

20

Act (FEHA); negligence; and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. See

21

ECF No. 39, First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).
The underlying dispute revolves around Savin’s time as a Medical Social Worker in the

22
23

Palliative Care Unit at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. FAC ¶ 15. Father Lery was

24

assigned as the clergy member of the Palliative Care Unit, although “his duties were not primarily

25

religious in nature, and he provided counseling and support services to patients of all faiths.” Id.

26
27
28

1

Defendant The Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco, a corporation sole, claims it was
erroneously sued as the Archdiocese of San Francisco. ECF No. 114 at 3. Nevertheless,
Defendant refers to itself as the Archdiocese throughout its motion. The Court follows suit.

1

Savin alleges that “Father Lery created a hostile work environment towards Plaintiff based upon

2

her sex, and Father Lery repeatedly and consistently engaged in sexual harassment towards

3

Plaintiff in the workplace.” Id. ¶ 18. She alleges that she verbally reported the conduct to

4

supervisors, but they “did nothing to investigate the complaint, or take any reasonable measures to

5

address the conduct in the workplace.” Id. ¶ 28.
On May 11, 2018, the Archdiocese filed a motion for good faith settlement determination.

6

ECF No. 114. The Archdiocese requests that the Court find that the settlement between Plaintiff

8

and the Archdiocese was made in good faith pursuant to California Civil Code of Civil Procedure

9

877.6, and to bar all claims against the Archdiocese for contribution and indemnity. In exchange

10

for a full and final settlement of Savin’s claims against the Archdiocese, the Archdiocese will pay

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

Savin $40,000.00. ECF No. 114-2 at 11-18 (settlement agreement and release). The Dioceses

12

contends that “this amount represents approximately sixteen percent (16%) of Plaintiff’s total

13

alleged damages.” ECF No. 114 at 6. No defendants oppose this motion.2

14

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Under California law, “[w]here a release, dismissal with or without prejudice or a covenant

15
16

not to sue or not to enforce judgment is given in good faith before verdict or judgment to one or

17

more of a number of tortfeasors claimed to be liable for the same tort . . . [i]t shall discharge the

18

party to whom it is given from all liability for any contribution to any other tortfeasors.” Cal. Civ.

19

Pro. Code § 877. Before granting such a discharge, however, California law requires the court to

20

make a determination that the settlement has been entered in good faith before that settlement can

21

become final. Id. § 877.6. The section provides further that “[a] determination by the court that

22

the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obliger from any

23

further claims against the settling tortfeasor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or

24

comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” Id. § 877.6(c).
A settlement is made in good faith if is within a “reasonable range” of the settling parties'

25
26
27
28

Defendant Father Bruce Lery filed an opposition to the Archdiocese’s motion for good faith on
May 29, 2018. ECF No. 123. The Court granted his request to defer ruling on the objection until
he had a chance to take the deposition of Bishop William Justice. ECF No. 124. Father Bruce
Lery withdrew his opposition on June 19, 2018. ECF No. 127.
2
2

1

proportionate share of liability to the plaintiff. Tech-Bilt Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc., 38

2

Cal. 3d 488, 499 (1985). Courts, in making a good faith settlement determinations, should

3

consider the following factors: (1) “a rough approximation of plaintiffs' total recovery and the

4

settlor's proportionate liability”; (2) “the amount paid in settlement”; (3) “the allocation of

5

settlement proceeds among plaintiffs”; (4) “a recognition that a settlor should pay less in

6

settlement than he would if he were found liable after trial”; (5) “the financial conditions and

7

insurance policy limits of settling defendants”; and (6) “the existence of collusion, fraud, or

8

tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.” Id. (citation omitted).

9

Any party opposing an application for good-faith settlement bears the burden of proving “that the
settlement is so far ‘out of the ballpark’ in relation to these factors as to be inconsistent with the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

equitable objectives of the statute.” Id. at 499-500; see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6(d). At

12

this stage of litigation, hard evidence is sometimes difficult to obtain, and “practical considerations

13

obviously require that the evaluation [of the settlement under Tech-Bilt] be made on the basis of

14

information available at the time of settlement.” Abbott Ford, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 43 Cal. 858, 874

15

(1987).
When no party objects to the proposed settlement, the court may bypass the Tech-Bilt

16
17

factors and enter a finding of good faith when presented merely with “the barebones motion which

18

sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief

19

background of the case.” City of Grand Terrace v. Super. Ct. of San Bernardino Cnty., 192 Cal.

20

App. 3d 1251, 1261 (1987); PAG-Daly City, LLC v. Quality Auto Locators, Inc., No. C 12-3907

21

WHA, 2014 WL 807415, at * 1-2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2014).

22

III.

ANALYSIS
The Court has reviewed the motion, the supporting declarations, and exhibits. Moving

23
24

defendant provided notice to all non-settling defendants. No defendant opposes the motion.

25

Because no party contests the motions, it is unnecessary to weigh the Tech–Bilt factors. City of

26

Grand Terrace, 192 Cal. App. 3d at 1261. The motion is therefore granted.

27

///

28

///
3

CONCLUSION

1
2

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Archdiocese’s unopposed motion for

3

determination of good faith settlement.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated: June 25, 2018

6
7
8

______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

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
4