Williams v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

1 MARK F. HAZELWOOD, State Bar No. 136521 [email protected] KIMBERLY Y. CHIN, State Bar No. 271333 [email protected] ERICA C. GONZALEZ, State Bar No. 289557 [email protected] ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP Montgomery Street, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 697-2000 Facsimile: (415) 813-2045 Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF RICHMOND and RHA HOUSING CORPORATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MONIQUE WILLIAMS, Case No. 4:19-cv-00576-YGR 13 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER DETERMINING GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT 14 v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION dba AMTRAK; UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation; CITY OF RICHMOND, a California Government Entity; COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a California Government Entity; and DOES 1-50, 19 Defendants.

21 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between plaintiff, MONIQUE WILLIAMS, and defendants, CITY OF RICHMOND and RHA HOUSING CORPORATION, as follows: 23 1. Defendants the CITY OF RICHMOND and RHA HOUSING CORPORATION have collectively reached a settlement with plaintiff MONIQUE WILLIAMS, for the total sum of $40,000, in return for a dismissal with prejudice. Rather than incurring burdening the Court with a formal motion for the determination of the good faith settlement, the parties conferred, including disclosing the terms of the settlement with counsel for the other defendants, to permit them to evaluate the settlement. The parties have all agreed to stipulate that the settlement is reasonable and made in good faith pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §877, et seq.

2 2. California Code of Civil Procedure §877, et seq., rather than federal common law, governs the determination of whether the above settlement is made in good faith. Where, as here, “a district court sits in diversity, or hears state law claims based on supplemental jurisdiction, the court applies substantive law to the state law claims.” Mason & Dixon Intermodal, Inc. v. Lapmaster Int’l, 632 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2011); Galam v. Carmel (In re Larry’s Apt., L.L.C.), 249 F.3d 832, 837 (9th Cir. 2001) (“It is well established that [u]nder the Erie doctrine, federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law” (internal quotations and citations omitted). “California Code of Civil Procedure §877 constitutes state substantive law.” Mason, supra, 632 F.3d at 1060 (holding the district court correctly applied California Code of Civil Procedure §877 as state substantive law to resolve motion to dismiss pursuant to good faith settlement); Fed. Savings & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Butler, 904 F.2d 505, 511 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that California Code of Civil Procedure §877 constitutes substantive law); See also Yanez v. United States, 989 F.2d 323, 327-28 (9th Cir. 1993).

15 3. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§877 and 877.6, all further claims against defendants, CITY OF RICHMOND and/or RHA HOUSING CORPORATION, for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, shall be barred.

19 Dated: December 10, 2020 LAW OFFICES OF LEONARD S. BECKER By: /s/ Leonard S. Becker 21 LEONARD S. BECKER Attorneys for Plaintiff 22 MONIQUE WILLIAMS Dated: December 10, 2020 KNOX RICKSEN By: /s/ Jane L. Trigero STEVEN R. ANTHONY JANE L. TRIGERO Attorneys for Plaintiff MONIQUE WILLIAMS Dated: December 10, 2020 ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP 3 By: /s/ Mark F. Hazelwood MARK F. HAZELWOOD 4 KIMBERLY Y. CHIN ERICA C. GONZALEZ 5 Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF RICHMOND and RHA HOUSING 6 CORPORATION Dated: December 10, 2020 FLESHER SCHAFF & SCHROEDER, INC. By: /s/ Jeremy J. Schroeder 10 JEREMY J. SCHROEDER Attorneys for Defendants 11 NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION dba AMTRAK and UNION 12 PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY Dated: December 10, 2020 PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ, LLP By: /s/ Oscar A. Pardo OSCAR A. PARDO Attorneys for Defendants RHA RAD HOUSING PARTNERS LP, JSCO FRIENDSHIP TRIANGLE LLC and THE JOHN STEWART COMPANY 1 ORDER 2 GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN AND THE PARTIES HAVING || STIPULATED TO THE SAME, the Court finds that the above-stated STIPULATION is | sanctioned by the Court and shall be and now is the Order of the Court. The settlement between || plaintiff, MONIQUE WILLIAMS, and defendants, the CITY OF RICHMOND and RHA | HOUSING CORPORATION, is hereby deemed to be a good faith settlement within the meaning | and effect of California Code of Civil Procedure §§877 and 877.6. Any further claims of any || other joint tortfeasors or co-obligors relating to the subject matter of this lawsuit against | defendants, the CITY OF RICHMOND and RHA HOUSING CORPORATION, for equitable || comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence || or comparative fault are hereby barred and dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Code of Civil | Procedure §877.6, subdivision (c).

15 | DATED: 12/16/2020 Copan Hagctflccs— YVONNE NZALEZ ROGERS 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4 19-CV-00576-YGR