Yanushkevich v. Fry's Electronics, Inc. et al

Filing 38

ORDER ADOPTING 37 MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON 33 UNOPPOSED APPLICATION BY DEFENDANTS SI 11, LLC AND SI 43, LLC FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/6/2017. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

DMITRY YANUSHKEVICH,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Case No. 15-cv-04830-BLF

v.
FRY'S ELECTRONICS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE
JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION ON
UNOPPOSED APPLICATION BY
DEFENDANTS SI 11, LLC AND SI 43,
LLC FOR DETERMINATION OF
GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT
[Re: ECF 33, 37]

14
15

In this disability discrimination action, Plaintiff Dmitry Yanushkevich alleges that he is a

16

“physically handicapped person,” a “physically disabled person,” and a “person with physical

17

disabilities” as those terms are used in federal and state law. Compl. ¶ 6, ECF 1. He sues Fry’s

18

Electronics, Inc. (“Fry’s”) under the federal American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and state

19

law, alleging that on multiple occasions he encountered architectural barriers at the Fry’s

20

Electronics retail store located in Palo Alto, California. Plaintiff also sues the owners of the

21

premises, SI 43, LLC and SI 11, LLC, who have reached a settlement with Plaintiff. Defendants

22

SI 43, LLC and SI 11, LLC (“Moving Parties”) have filed an Application for Determination of

23

Good Faith Settlement, see ECF 33, which this Court referred to Magistrate Judge Susan van

24

Keulen for a Report and Recommendation, see ECF 36.

25

The Court has reviewed Judge van Keulen’s Report and Recommendation, recommending

26

that the Court grant Moving Parties’ unopposed application. See R&R, ECF 37. No objection to

27

the Report and Recommendation has been filed and the deadline to object has expired. See Fed.

28

R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (deadline for objection is fourteen days after being served with report and

1

recommendation). Fry’s, the only party to this suit which is not a party to the settlement, has filed

2

a non-opposition to the application, stating that Fry’s “agrees the Court can deem the settlement in

3

good faith.” Fry’s Electronics’ Non-Opposition at 3, ECF 34.

4

The Court finds the Report and Recommendation to be correct, well-reasoned and

5

thorough. In particular, the Court agrees with Judge van Keulen’s conclusions that the settlement

6

in this case properly may be evaluated under California Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6 and that

7

the settlement between Plaintiff and Moving Parties satisfies the requirements of § 877.6. See

8

R&R at 4-5, ECF 37. Accordingly, the Court:

9

(1)

ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety; and

10

(2)

GRANTS the Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15
16

Dated: June 6, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2