Velez v. Bail Hotline Bail Bonds, Inc.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KRISTOPHER VELEZ, No. 2:18-cv-01914-MCE-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER CITY OF SACRAMENTO et al., 15 Defendants.

17 This is a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law filed by Plaintiff Kristopher Velez (“Plaintiff”) against two sets of defendants: (1) City of Sacramento, Daniel Farnsworth, and John Harshbarger (collectively, “City Defendants”); and (2) Brian Smith, Alex Hastings, Bail Hotline Bail Bonds, Inc., Fugitive Recovery Investigations, Inc., and American Surety Company (collectively, “Bail Defendants”). On August 12, 2021, the parties engaged in private mediation in which City Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff $3,250,000 in exchange for the dismissal of this action with 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 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 | 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 || was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further || claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, | or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative | fault.”). Courts usually consider the factors set forth in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward- || 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 | upon the trial court to consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors.” City of Grand Terrace v. || Superior Ct., 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1261 (1987) (“[W]hen no one objects, the || barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a || declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is sufficient.”); see also || Hernandez v. Contra Costa Cnty., Case No. 20-cv-01183-AGT, 2021 WL 1858297, at | *1-2(N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2021).

16 The Court has reviewed City Defendants’ unopposed application and the | Declaration of Sean D. Richmond and finds it unnecessary to weigh the Tech-Bilt | factors. Accordingly, City Defendants’ application for a good faith settlement | determination, ECF No. 48, is GRANTED." 20 IT |S SO ORDERED.

22 || Dated: October 22, 2021 23 J Lat LEK ee NK 4 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 □ 28 submitted ose oral argent □□□ material assistance, the Court ordered this matter