Shin v. Yoon ( 2019 )

1 B. Christine Park, SBN234689 CHRISTINE PARK LAW FIRM, APC 2 11040 Bollinger Canyon Road, Suite E-202 San Ramon, CA 94582 3 Tel: (323) 578-6957 4 Fax: (213) 289-1977 boksoonpark@gmail.com 5 Attorneys for Defendants and Counter-Claimant, Bob Young Yoon 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 HYUN JU SHIN, Case No. 1:17-cv-01371-AWI-SKO 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO 13 ROBERT YOUNG YOON; KYOUNG MEE CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL YOON; KYOUNG SUP YOON; Y & Y PROCEDURE, SECTIONS 877 et seq. 14 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., THE VICTUS GROUP, INC.; BLACKSTONE 15 SEATTLE, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, [Submitted concurrently with Notice of 16 Settlement; Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re: Defendants. Stay of Entire Case Against Remaining Parties; 17 and [Proposed] Stipulated Judgment] 18 19 BOB YOUNG YOON, erroneously sued as Robert Young Yoon, as an individual and as a 20 successor-in interest to Young Soon Yoon’s estate, 21 Counter-Claimant, v. 22 HYUN JU SHIN, 23 Counter-Defendant. 24 25 A signed version of the following stipulation was filed on August 28, 2019: 26 27 1 STIPULATION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT 2 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff HYUN JU SHIN (“Plaintiff”) 3 and Defendants, BOB YOUNG YOON (“BOB”), Y&Y PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC. 4 (“YY PROPERTY”), THE VICTUS GROUP, INC. (“VICTUS”), BLACKSTONE SEATTLE, 5 LLC (“BLACKSTONE”), KYOUNG SUP YOON (“SUP”) AND KYOUNG MEE YOON 6 (“MEE”) (collectively, “Defendants”) (altogether, “Parties”), through their counsel of record, as 7 follows: 8 9 1. Defendants have settled with Plaintiff for the payment of two hundred thousand 10 dollars ($200,000.00), through a Stipulated Judgment against Defendants Bob Young Yoon and 11 YYPM. Rather than incur the burden, expense, and delay in seeking a judicial determination of 12 good faith settlement pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6, the 13 parties agree that the settlement of Defendants and Plaintiff is in good faith under these code 14 sections. 15 2. All parties to this matter agree that the settlement entered into between Plaintiff 16 and Defendants complies with the factors and considerations set forth in Tech-Built, Inc. v. 17 Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 37 Cal.3d 488 and its progeny. 18 19 3. California Code of Civil Procedure section 877 et seq., rather than federal 20 common law, governs the determination of whether the settlement entered into by and between 21 the Plaintiff and Defendants is in good faith. Where, as here, “a district court sits in diversity, or 22 hears state law claims based on supplemental jurisdiction, the court applies state substantive law 23 to the state law claims.” (Mason & Dixon Intermodal, Inc. v. Lapmaster Int’l, 632 F.3d 1056, 24 1060 (9th Cir. 2011); Galam v. Carmel (In re Larry's Apartment), 249 F.3d 832, 837 (9th Cir. 25 2001) (“It is well established that [u]nder the Erie doctrine, federal courts sitting in diversity 26 apply state substantive law” (internal quotations and citations omitted).) “California Code of 27 Civil Procedure section 877 constitutes state substantive law.” Mason & Dixon Intermodal, Inc., 1 632 F.3d at 1060 (holding the district court correctly applied California Code of Civil Procedure 2 section 877 as state substantive law to resolve motion to dismiss pursuant to good faith 3 settlement); Fed. Savings & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Butler, 904 F.2d 505, 511 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding 4 that California Code of Civil Procedure section 877 constitutes substantive law); See also Federal 5 Savings and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Butler, 904 F.2d 505, 511 (9th Cir. 1990) and Yanez v. United 6 States, 989 F.2d 323, 327-28 (9th Cir. 1993.) 7 4. The parties to this matter also agree that, pursuant to the California Code of 8 Civil Procedure §877.6(c), all past, present, and future claims by any other party, or any other 9 joint tortfeasor or co-obligor, including non-parties to this action, for any claims of equitable 10 comparative contribution or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence 11 or comparative fault, against Defendants are barred. 12 13 5. The parties to this matter agree that the filing of an application and/or motion 14 for determination of good faith settlement would be a waste of client and judicial resources. 15 Therefore, the parties waive notice of any submission of this stipulation for approval by the 16 Court, whether on an ex parte basis or by formal noticed motion, because there is no opposition 17 to Defendants seeking an order that the settlement is in good faith. 18 8. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6, all 19 further Claims against Defendants for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or 20 comparative indemnity shall be barred. 21 22 9. This Stipulation may be presented with separate signature pages and by 23 facsimile. 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 1 Dated: August 19, 2019 CHRISTINE PARK LAW FIRM, APC 2 3 By: B. Christine Park, Esq. 4 Attorney for Defendants and Counter- Complainants Bob Young Yoon, YY 5 Property Management, Inc., Kyoung Mee Yoon, Kyoung Sup Yoon, The Victus 6 Group, Inc., and Blackstone Seattle, LLC 7 8 Dated: August ___, 2019 GOLDBERG SEGALLA, LLP 9 10 By: David Y. Choi, Esq. 11 Attorney for Plaintiffs and Counter- 12 D efendants Su Jung Shin and Hyun Ju Shin 13 14 After consideration, the Court will give effect to the above stipulation. 15 ORDER 16 GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN AND THE PARTIES HAVING 17 STIPULATED TO THE SAME, the Court finds that the above-stated STIPULATION is 18 sanctioned by the Court and shall be and now is the Order of the Court. The Settlement 19 Agreement between Plaintiff HYUN JU SHIN (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants, BOB YOUNG 20 YOON, Y&Y PROPERTY MANAGEMNET, INC., THE VICTUS GROUP, INC., 21 BLACKSTONE SEATTLE, LLC, KYOUNG SUP YOON and KYOUNG MEE YOON 22 (collectively, “Defendants”) (altogether, “Parties”) is hereby deemed to be a good faith 23 settlement within the meaning and effect of California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 877 and 24 25 877.6. Any further claims of any other joint tortfeasors or co-obligors relating to the subject 26 matter of this lawsuit against the Defendants for equitable comparative contribution, or partial 27 or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault are hereby 1 barred and dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 877.6, subdivision (c). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. , □□ 5 || Dated: _ September 10, 2019 ZS : Lb tt "SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 STIPULATION AND [ORDER] RE: GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO