holding that while the “section 877.6 procedures do not govern a 12 federal action . . . the substantive provisions. . . are applicable”
How later courts described this case
- holding that while the “section 877.6 procedures do not govern a 12 federal action . . . the substantive provisions. . . are applicable”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1 Bradley J. Swingle, SBN 171535
Amanda J. Heitlinger, SBN 271469
2 ARATA, SWINGLE, VAN EGMOND & HEITLINGER
A Professional Law Corporation
3 1207 I Street
Post Office Box 3287
4 Modesto, California 95354
Telephone: (209) 522-2211
5 Facsimile: (209) 522-2980
6 Attorneys for Defendants
CITY OF CERES and DEREK PERRY
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
WALTER W. WELLS and SCOTT Case No: 1:20-CV-00770-TLN-BAM
12 MCFARLANE,
Honorable Troy L. Nunley
13 Plaintiffs,
STIPULATION RE DETERMINATION OF
14 vs. GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT OF
DEFENDANTS CITY OF CERES AND
15 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS; CITY OF DEREK PERRY WITH PLAINTIFFS
MODESTO; CITY OF CERES;
16 STANISLAUS COUNTY OFFICE OF THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY; KIRK BUNCH;
17 JON EVERS; DALE LINGERFELT; STEVE
JACOBSON; BIRGIT FLADAGER; COREY
18 BROWN; and DEREK PERRY,
19 Defendants.
______________________________/
20
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between plaintiffs, WALTER W. WELLS and SCOTT
21
MCFARLANE (hereafter “PLAINTIFFS” when referred to collectively), defendants COUNTY OF
22
STANISLAUS, STANISLAUS COUNTY OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, KIRK
23
BUNCH, DALE LINGERFELT, STEVE JACOBSON, BIRGIT FLADAGER, and COREY
24
BROWN (hereafter “COUNTY”), defendant CITY OF MODESTO (hereafter “MODESTO”), and
25
defendant CITY OF CERES and DEREK PERRY (hereafter “CERES”), as follows:
26
1. CERES is a defendant in this action.
27
28
1 2. CERES has reached an agreement with PLAINTIFFS to pay to them the total sum of
2 $10,000.00, with WALTER W. WELLS receiving $5,000.00 and SCOTT MCFARLANE receiving
3 $5,000.00, in exchange for a dismissal of PLAINTIFFS’ Claims against CERES.
4 3. PLAINTIFFS, COUNTY, MODESTO, and CERES all hereby agree and stipulate that
5 the settlement between PLAINTIFFS and CERES is in good faith pursuant to California Code of
6 Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6.
7 4. California Code of Civil Procedure section 877 et. seq. governs the determination of
8 whether the settlement entered into by and between PLAINTIFFS and CERES is in good faith. A
9 settling party may seek a determination that a settlement was made in good faith under California
10 Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 in federal court. Fed. Sav. &Loan Ins. Corp. v. Butler, 904
11 F.2d 505, 511 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that while the “section 877.6 procedures do not govern a
12 federal action . . . the substantive provisions. . . are applicable”); Jette v. Orange Cnty., Fin., Inc., No.
13 2:08-cv-01767 GEB KJM, 2010 WL 3341561, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2010); Maxwell v.
14 MortgageIT, Inc., No. 1:08-CV-01329 OWW SKO, 2010 WL 2219190, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 1,
15 2010) (stating that “federal courts may enter . . . determinations” under section 877.6); Sunterra Corp.
16 v. Perini Bldg. Co., No. 2:04-cv-00784 MCE EFB, 2009 WL 2136108, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 15,
17 2009) (stating that “[a] district court may properly consult the provisions of §877.6 in determining
18 whether an early settlement meets the requisite good faith scrutiny”).
19 Section 877.6 provides:
20 (a)(1) Any party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint
tortfeasors . . . shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith of a
21 settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged
tortfeasors . . ., upon giving notice . . . .
22
(2) In the alternative, a settling party may give notice of settlement to all parties and
23 to the court, together with an application for determination of good faith settlement
and a proposed order. . . .
24
(b) The issue of the good faith of a settlement may be determined by the court on the
25 basis of affidavits served with the notice of hearing, and any counteraffidavits filed in
response, or the court may, in its discretion, receive other evidence at the hearing.
26
(c) A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar
27 any other joint tortfeasor . . . from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor . . .
28
1 for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on
comparative negligence or comparative fault.
2
(d) The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that
3 issue.
4 California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6.
5 Here, this application is unopposed and is stipulated to by all of the parties in this litigation.
6 5. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6, all further
7 Claims against CERES for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity,
8 shall be barred.
9 DATED: March 17, 2022 ARATA, SWINGLE, VAN EGMOND & HEITLINGER
A Professional Law Corporation
10
11 By: /s/ Bradley J. Swingle
Bradley J. Swingle
12 Attorneys for Defendants
CITY OF CERES and DEREK PERRY
13
14 DATED: March 17, 2022 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
15
By: /s/ Arturo J. Gonzalez (authorized per email)
16 Arturo J. Gonzalez
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
17 WALTER W. WELLS and SCOTT MCFARLANE
18 DATED: March 17, 2022 ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH
19
By /s/ Patrick D. Moriarty (authorized per email)
20 Patrick D. Moriarty
Attorneys for Defendants
21 CITY OF MODESTO, CHIEF GALEN
CARROLL and DETECTIVE JON EVERS
22
DATED: March 17, 2022 PORTER SCOTT, APC
23
24 By /s/ John R. Whitefleet (authorized per email)
John R. Whitefleet
25 Attorneys for Defendants
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, STANISLAUS OFFICE
26 OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, KIRK BUNCH,
DALE LINGERFELT, STEVE JACOBSON and
27 BIRGIT FLADAGER
28
1 ORDER
2 GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN AND THE PARTIES HAVING STIPULATED
3 || TO THE SAME, the Court finds that the above-stated Stipulation is and shall be the Order of the
4 || Court. The settlement between plaintiffs WALTER J. WELLS, SCOTT MCFARLANE, and CERES
5 ||is hereby deemed to be a good faith settlement within the meaning and effect of California Code of
6 || Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6. Any further claims of any joint tortfeasors or co-obligors
7 || relating to the subject matter of this lawsuit against CERES for equitable comparative contribution, «
8 || partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault are hereby
9 || forever barred and dismissed with prejudice pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section
10 || 877.6, subdivision (c).
1]
12 || IT IS SO ORDERED. ry /)
13 “ \/ bu
14 || DATED: March 17, 2022 —ZNS Ze □□
Troy L. Nunley» □
15 United States District Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“STIPULATION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT AND ORDER □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□