Velez v. Bail Hotline Bail Bonds, Inc. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KRISTOPHER VELEZ, No. 2:18-cv-01914-MCE-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CITY OF SACRAMENTO et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This is a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law filed by 18 Plaintiff Kristopher Velez (“Plaintiff”) against two sets of defendants: (1) City of 19 Sacramento, Daniel Farnsworth, and John Harshbarger (collectively, “City Defendants”); 20 and (2) Brian Smith, Alex Hastings, Bail Hotline Bail Bonds, Inc., Fugitive Recovery 21 Investigations, Inc., and American Surety Company (collectively, “Bail Defendants”). On 22 August 12, 2021, the parties engaged in private mediation in which City Defendants 23 agreed to pay Plaintiff $3,250,000 in exchange for the dismissal of this action with 24 prejudice. ECF No. 48 at 4. Bail Defendants did not agree to any settlement payment. 25 Id. On August 27, 2021, City Defendants filed an application for a good faith settlement 26 determination pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 877. ECF No. 48. 27 Plaintiff and Bail Defendants do not oppose the application. ECF Nos. 54, 55. 28 /// 1 Section 877 provides that a good faith settlement “shall discharge the party to 2 | whom it is given from all liability for any contribution to any other parties.” Cal. Civ. Proc. 3 || Code § 877(b); see also id. § 877.6(c) (“A determination by the court that the settlement 4 || was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further 5 || claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, 6 | or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative 7 | fault.”). Courts usually consider the factors set forth in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward- 8 || Clyde & Associates, 38 Cal. 3d 488, 498 (1985), in making a good faith determination. 9 | However, “only when the good faith nature of a settlement is disputed, it is incumbent 10 | upon the trial court to consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors.” City of Grand Terrace v. 11 || Superior Ct., 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1261 (1987) (“[W]hen no one objects, the 12 || barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a 13 || declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is sufficient.”); see also 14 || Hernandez v. Contra Costa Cnty., Case No. 20-cv-01183-AGT, 2021 WL 1858297, at 15 | *1-2(N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2021). 16 The Court has reviewed City Defendants’ unopposed application and the 17 | Declaration of Sean D. Richmond and finds it unnecessary to weigh the Tech-Bilt 18 | factors. Accordingly, City Defendants’ application for a good faith settlement 19 | determination, ECF No. 48, is GRANTED." 20 IT |S SO ORDERED. 21 22 || Dated: October 22, 2021 23 J Lat LEK ee NK 4 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 □ 28 submitted ose oral argent □□□ material assistance, the Court ordered this matter