Zahnleuter v. Lenhart ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 Katherine Zahnleuter, No. 2:20-cv-02492-KJM-KJIN 1] Plaintiff, ORDER 12 Vv. 13 Gabriel Lenhart; Law Offices of Gabriel 14 Lenhart; Amy Mueller, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, ° Defendants. 16 17 18 19 As explained below, the court approves plaintiff Katherine Zahnleuter and defendants 20 | Gabriel Lenhart and Law Offices of Gabriel Lenhart’s application for determination of good faith 21 | settlement. ECF No. 35. 22 When a district court sits in diversity, as it does here, it “applies state substantive law to 23 | the state law claims,” including the good-faith settlement provisions of California Code of Civil 24 | Procedure sections 877 and 877.6. Mason & Dixon Intermodal, Inc. v. Lapmaster Int’] LLC, 25 | 632F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Butler, 904 F.2d 26 | 505,511 & n.6 (9th Cir. 1990). Under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 27 | 877.6, a court may discharge a settling party from future liability in a case “in which it is alleged 28 | that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6(a)(1). “A 1 determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint 2 tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for 3 equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative 4 negligence or comparative fault.” Id. § 877.6(c). In making a good-faith determination, the court 5 must assess whether the parties’ settlement figure falls within a reasonable range. See PacifiCare 6 of Cal. v. Bright Med. Assocs., Inc., 198 Cal. App. 4th 1451, 1464 (2011). The California 7 Supreme Court has established criteria to guide this analysis when an application for a 8 determination of a good faith settlement is contested. See Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & 9 Associates, 38 Cal. 3d 488 (1985). Specifically, the court must consider: (1) a rough 10 approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability, (2) the amount 11 paid in settlement, (3) the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, (4) recognition that 12 a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial, (5) the 13 settling party’s financial conditions and insurance policy limits and (7) whether collusion, fraud, 14 or tortious conduct is claimed to injure the non-settling parties’ interests. Id. at 499. Ultimately 15 the party opposing settlement has the burden of proof to show it was not made in good faith. Cal. 16 Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6(d). 17 However, when no party opposes a good faith settlement application, both California and 18 federal district courts “have found consideration of [the Tech-Bilt] factors unnecessary.” Spitzer 19 v. Aljoe, No. 13-05442, 2015 WL 6828133, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2015) (collecting cases); see 20 also City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Ct., 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1261 (1987). 21 Here, defendant Amy Mueller has withdrawn her opposition to the other parties’ 22 application. See Opp’n, ECF No. 36; Notice of Withdrawal, ECF No. 47. Thus, the court need 23 not review the Tech-Bilt factors. Nevertheless, the court has reviewed the application and 24 accompanying declarations, and, finding the application to be made in good faith, grants the 25 settlement application. The parties are directed to file dispositional documents no later than 14 26 days from the date of this order. 27 ///// 28 ///// ] This order resolves ECF No. 35. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 DATED: March 3, 2023. [ (] 4 tied { g_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE