S.A.A.S. v. USA

Opinion

MUnCiGteRd ESGtaOteRs AWtt.oSrCneOyTT Assistant United States Attorney 501 I Street, Suite 10-100 Sacramento, CA 95814 E-mail: joseph.frueh@usdoj.gov Telephone: (916) 554-2702 Facsimile: (916) 554-2900 Attorneys for Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S.A.A.S., Case No. 2:18-cv-01566-MCE-DB Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF v. GOOD-FAITH SETTLEMENT (ECF 18) Defendant. This is a wrongful death (medical malpractice) action filed by Plaintiff S.A.A.S. against Defendant United States of America pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act(“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671–80. The parties executed a settlement agreement under which Defendant would pay $75,000 to Plaintiff in exchange for the dismissal of this action with prejudice. See Declaration of Christian R. Jagusch (“Jagusch Decl.,” ECF 17-2) Ex. D.1 After executing the settlement agreement, Defendant filed and served an Application for Determination of Good-Faith Settlement on March 26, 2020, and set the Applicationfor a hearing on May 14, 2020, pursuant to section 877 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. ECF 18; see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6(a)(1). Actions under the FTCA are governed by the substantive law of the state in which the allegedly tortious act or omission occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1); Molzof v. United States, 502 U.S. 301, 305 (1992). Section 877 is a substantive rule applied by federal district courts. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Butler, 904 F.2d 505, 511 & n.6 (9th Cir. 1990). 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. 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.”). Any Opposition to Defendant’sApplication was to be filed and served no later than April30, 2020. See E.D. Cal. Local R. 230(c); see also id.at 101 (defining “motion” to include any application or other request made to the Court for an order or other judicial activity). To date, the docket does not reflect the filing of any Opposition, and counsel for the United States reports he has not received any Opposition. See ECF 20. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), “[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party.” E.D. Cal. Local R. 230(c). Further, the Court may construe the non-filing of an Opposition as non-opposition to the Application. Id. 1 The settlement agreement is conditioned on Court approval pursuant to Local Rule 202. See Jagusch Decl. Ex. D, at 4; see also Plaintiff’s Motion to Approve Settlement (ECF 17). wOAoe 2.40 VEU NS ED MUO ow PC eee TOY VIG

On May 11, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Defendant’s Application to July 9, 2020. ECF 21. The Court later vacated the hearing on May 14, 2020. ECF 22; see E.D. Cal. Local R. 230(g). The Court has considered the facts and contentions presented in Defendant’s Application and weighed the factors outlined in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assocs., 38 Cal.3d 488 (1985), including (1) a rough approximation of the plaintiffs total recovery and the settling defendant’s } proportionate liability; (2) the settkement amount; (3) the allocation of settlement proceeds; (4) the recognition that a settling defendant should pay less in settlement than after a finding of liability at trial; (5) the financial condition of the settling defendant; and (6) the existence of collusion or fraud aimed to injure non-settling parties. Having considered the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant United States of America’s Application for Determination of Good-Faith Settlement (ECF 18) is GRANTED. > DATED: May 21, 2020

MORRISON C. EN iJ UNITED STATES DISTRICT Presented by: United States Attorney By: /s/ Joseph B. Frueh Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendant

Preapacen Opener CRANTING APPT ICATIAN EOP 2