Michell et al v. United States of America et al

Filing 88

ORDER Granting 78 Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement. The settlement reached between the United States and the the Settling Defendants is found to be in good faith within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6, and any othe r joint tortfeasor is barred from any further claims against Settling Defendants for equitable comparative contribution or comparative indemnity based on comparative negligence or comparative fault. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 9/6/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ecs)(jrd)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

FRANK W. MICHELL; MARY
CHRISTINE MICHELL; CHRISTOPHER
DAMITZ; LORI NUNEZ and LUIS
NUNEZ, IV, as individuals,

Case No. 09cv0387 BTM(JMA)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH
SETTLEMENT

13
Plaintiff,
14
15
16
17
18
19

v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
COURNTEY NUNEZ; and DOES 1
through 50,
Defendant.
AND RELATED CROSS-CLAIMS AND
THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS

20
21

Cross-Defendant Christopher Damitz and Third-Party Defendants Brian Johnson,

22

Frank Modica, and Phi Huu (David) Nguyen (“Settling Defendants”) have filed a motion for

23

determination of good faith settlement under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6. For the reasons

24

discussed below, the motion is GRANTED.

25
26

I. BACKGROUND

27

This litigation arises out of a series of accidents on August 27, 2006, on State Route

28

94, in San Diego County. Frank Modica, who was riding a motorcycle, was involved in a
1

09cv0387 BTM(JMA)

1

collision with a bicyclist. The United States Border Patrol arrived at the scene of the accident

2

and, according to Plaintiffs, parked their vehicles in such a manner as to unreasonably block

3

the road and traffic. A group of motorcycle riders, including Plaintiffs and the Third-Party

4

Defendants, came upon the scene at different times and crashed due to the blockage. Luis

5

S. Nunez, III, suffered fatal injuries, and Frank W. Michell and Christopher Damitz suffered

6

nonfatal injuries.

7

On February 26, 2009, Frank W. Michell, Mary Christine Michell, and Christopher

8

Damitz filed their complaint against the United States, alleging negligence and the creation

9

of a dangerous condition on public property. On March 9, 2009, Lori Nunez and Luis Nunez,

10

IV, filed their action against the United States, asserting claims for negligence and wrongful

11

death. The cases were subsequently consolidated.

12

On January 20, 2010, the United States filed a cross-complaint against Christopher

13

Damitz and Frank Michell and a third-party complaint against Frank Modica, the Executor or

14

Administrator of the Estate of Luis Nunez III, Phi Huu Nguyen, Jorge A.C. Clements, John

15

West, Robert Lou, Brian K. Johnson; and Mauricio Villareal. The United States alleges that

16

the cross-defendants and third-party defendants engaged in behavior that caused the death,

17

injury, and damages of Plaintiffs. Specifically, the United States alleges that they were

18

engaged in dangerous street-racing on April 27, 2006, and were speeding east-bound on

19

State Route 94, in related but sometimes briefly separated packs, toward the Modica-bicyclist

20

collision site. The United States brought claims for negligence, indemnity and contribution,

21

apportionment, and declaratory relief.

22

On February 18, 2010, third-party defendant John West filed his own counter-claim

23

against the United States and cross-claims against the third-party defendants, seeking

24

indemnity based on equitable principles of comparative fault.

25

On April 1, 2011, the Settling Defendants brought a motion for determination of good

26

faith settlement. In an order filed on May 31, 2011, the Court denied the motion because the

27

proposed settlement was contingent on the Court issuing an order barring any future claims,

28

arising from or related to the accident, against the Settling Defendants by any party to this
2

09cv0387 BTM(JMA)

1

litigation or anyone else. The Court explained that it did not have the authority under Cal.

2

Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6 to issue such a bar order.

3
4
5

The Settling Defendants have renewed their motion for a determination of good faith
settlement but no longer seek a broad bar order.
The material terms of the revised settlement agreement (Ex. A to Molinari Decl.)

6

provide:

7

•

8
9

Each of the Settling Defendants will pay their policy limit amount of $30,000.00
to the United States Treasury.

•

The United States agrees that Settling Defendants shall be released and

10

discharged from further exposure to liability or potential liability for indemnity

11

and contribution.

12

•

Upon this Court’s entry of an order determining that the settlement is in good

13

faith, the United States shall dismiss with prejudice the Settling Defendants

14

from their cross-complaints and third-party complaints.

15

•

In exchange for the payments of the policy limits, the United States shall

16

release and forever discharge the Settling Defendants (Christopher Damitz as

17

a cross-defendant only) from any and all past, present, or future claims relating

18

to this action. (The release does not restrict or waive any possible defenses,

19

offsets, or other matters regarding the defense of the United States against the

20

claims of Damitz as a plaintiff.)

21
22
23
24

II. DISCUSSION
The Settling Defendants seek a determination by the Court that their settlement with
the United States is in good faith. As discussed below, the Court finds that it is.

25

Under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6(a)(1), “[a]ny party to an action wherein it is alleged

26

that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the

27

good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more

28

alleged tortfeasors . . . .” If the court determines that the settlement was made in good faith,
3

09cv0387 BTM(JMA)

1

such determination “shall bar any other joint tortfeasor from any further claims against the

2

settling tortfeasor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity,

3

based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6(c).

4

A party asserting the lack of good faith bears the burden of proof on that issue. Cal. Civ.

5

Proc. Code § 877.6(d).

6

In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc., 38 Cal. 3d 488, 499 (1985), a case in

7

which the good faith nature of the settlement was disputed, the California Supreme Court set

8

forth a number of factors to be considered by the court in determining whether a settlement

9

is in good faith, including: (1) a rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery and the

10

settlors’ proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; 3) the allocation of

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of non-settling defendants.

15

The California Court of Appeal has held that it is incumbent upon the court deciding

16

the motion for good faith settlement to consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors only when

17

the good faith nature of a settlement is disputed. City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court,

18

192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1261 (1987). “That is to say, when no one objects, the barebones

19

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

20

forth a brief background of the case is sufficient.” Id. See also Hernandez v. Sutter Medical

21

Center of Santa Rosa, 2009 WL 322937 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2009) (granting motion for good

22

faith settlement without performing Tech-Bilt analysis because there were no objections);

23

Bonds v. Nicoletti Oil, Inc., 2008 WL 4104272 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2008) (declining to weigh

24

Tech-Bilt factors because there was no opposition to the motion for good faith settlement).

25

Here, no opposition or objections have been filed to the motion. Accordingly, the

26

Court does not deem it necessary to engage in the Tech-Bilt analysis.

27

The Court has reviewed the terms of the settlement and is satisfied that the settlement

28

is in good faith. There is no evidence of collusion or fraud, and the amount to be paid under
4

09cv0387 BTM(JMA)

1

the settlement agreement (the $30,000 insurance policy limit for each Settling Defendant)

2

is reasonable considering the financial condition of the Settling Defendants and the nature

3

of the United States’ claims against them. The Plaintiffs have not filed claims against the

4

Settling Defendants and have not alleged that the Settling Defendants are in anyway

5

responsible for their injuries.

6
7

The Court concludes that the settlement is in good faith and GRANTS the Settling
Defendants’ motion.

8
9

III. CONCLUSION

10

For the reasons discussed above, the Settling Defendants’ motion for determination

11

of good faith settlement is GRANTED. The settlement reached between the United States

12

and the the Settling Defendants is found to be in good faith within the meaning of Cal. Civ.

13

Proc. Code § 877.6, and any other joint tortfeasor is barred from any further claims against

14

Settling Defendants for equitable comparative contribution or comparative indemnity based

15

on comparative negligence or comparative fault.

16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
DATED: September 6, 2011
19
20
21

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

09cv0387 BTM(JMA)