Wendell et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al

Filing 365

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING UNOPPOSED 362 MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT; APPROVING 364 STIPULATION. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

STEPHEN WENDELL, et al.,

5
6

Plaintiffs,
v.

7

JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al.,

8

Defendants.
________________________________/

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

No. C 09-4124 CW
ORDER GRANTING
UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR DETERMINATION
OF GOOD FAITH
SETTLEMENT;
APPROVING
STIPULATION
(Docket Nos. 361,
362)

Plaintiffs Stephen and Lisa Wendell brought this products

11

liability action as successors-in-interest to their deceased son,

12

Maxx Wendell, in 2009.

13

that they had reached an agreement to settle all of their pending

14

claims against Defendant Abbott Laboratories.

15

the Court that they had reached a separate agreement to settle all

16

of their pending claims against Defendants Centocor, Inc. and

17

Johnson & Johnson.

18

Defendant remaining in this action is Teva Pharmaceuticals.

In April 2014, they notified the Court

They also informed

As a result of these agreements, the only

19

On May 27, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a joint motion with Abbott

20

Labs for a determination that their settlement agreement was made

21

in good faith under section 877.6 of the California Code of Civil

22

Procedure.

23

on May 29, 2014.

24

parties filed a stipulation that Plaintiffs’ settlement agreement

25

with Centocor and Johnson & Johnson was made in good faith under

26

section 877.6.

27

grants the unopposed motion for a determination of good faith

28

settlement and approves the parties’ stipulation.

Teva filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion
The following day, May 30, 2014, all of the

After reviewing these submissions, the Court

1

DISCUSSION

2

California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 provides

3

that any settling party in an action in which it is alleged that

4

there are two or more tortfeasors may seek a court’s determination

5

that the settlement was made in good faith.

6

v. Woodward-Clyde & Assocs., 38 Cal. 3d 488, 494-95 (1985).

7

obtain a good faith determination,

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

See Tech-Bilt, Inc.
To

a settling party may give notice of settlement
to all parties and to the court, together with
an application for determination of good faith
settlement and a proposed order. The
application shall indicate the settling
parties, and the basis, terms, and amount of
the settlement. The notice, application, and
proposed order shall be given by certified
mail, return receipt requested.

13

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6(a)(2).

14

determination “shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor

15

from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-

16

obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or

17

comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or

18

comparative fault.”

19

settlement’s good faith has the burden of proof on this issue.

20

Id. § 877.6(d).

21

discretion to determine whether a settlement is in good faith

22

under this provision.

23

Int’l LLC, 632 F.3d 1056, 1064 (9th Cir. 2011).

24

Id. § 877.6(c).

A court’s good faith

A party challenging a

Federal courts sitting in diversity have

Mason & Dixon Intermodal, Inc. v. Lapmaster

Here, notice of both of the pending settlement agreements was

25

given to all parties.

26

all represented that they do not oppose the settlement agreement

27

between Plaintiffs and Abbott Labs or contest that it was made in

28

good faith.

Teva, Centocor, and Johnson & Johnson have

Declaration of Brenton A. Rogers ¶ 6.
2

Likewise, all

1

of the parties have stipulated that the settlement agreement

2

between Plaintiffs, Centocor, and Johnson & Johnson was made in

3

good faith.

4

Thus, in light of the parties’ consensus that the pending

5

settlement agreements were made in good faith, the Court finds

6

that the settlement agreements satisfy section 877.6.

7

Grand Terrace v. Superior Court, 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1261

8

(1987) (“We are unaware of any reported decision which has

9

reversed an uncontested good faith determination and we,

City of

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

therefore, conclude that only when the good faith nature of a

11

settlement is disputed, it is incumbent upon the trial court to

12

consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors.”); PAG-Daly City, LLC v.

13

Quality Auto Locators, Inc., 2014 WL 807415, at *2 (N.D. Cal.)

14

(approving unopposed motion for good faith determination and

15

finding it “unnecessary to weigh the Tech–Bilt factors”).

16

California Court of Appeal has held, “when no one objects, the

17

barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith,

18

accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background

19

of the case is sufficient.”

20

requirements here.

21
22

Id.

As the

The parties have satisfied these

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’

23

and Abbott Labs’ unopposed joint motion for a determination of

24

good faith settlement (Docket No. 362) and APPROVES the parties’

25

stipulation of good faith settlement (Docket No. 364).

26

addition, the Court finds that Plaintiffs and Abbott Labs have

27

identified good cause for sealing the terms of their settlement

28
3

In

1

agreement and therefore GRANTS their joint motion to seal (Docket

2

No. 361).

3

The parties shall file stipulations of voluntary dismissal of

4

all claims against the settling Defendants according to the terms

5

set forth in their respective settlement agreements.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

Dated: 6/10/2014

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4