Walter W. Wells v. County of Stanislaus ( 2022 )

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 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□