Williams v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

Opinion

1 MARK F. HAZELWOOD, State Bar No. 136521 mhazelwood@aghwlaw.com 2 KIMBERLY Y. CHIN, State Bar No. 271333 kchin@aghwlaw.com 3 ERICA C. GONZALEZ, State Bar No. 289557 egonzalez@aghwlaw.com 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 697-2000 6 Facsimile: (415) 813-2045 7 Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF RICHMOND and RHA HOUSING 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 MONIQUE WILLIAMS, Case No. 4:19-cv-00576-YGR 13 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER DETERMINING GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT 14 v. CORPORATION dba AMTRAK; UNION 16 PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation; CITY OF RICHMOND, a 17 California Government Entity; COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a California 18 Government Entity; and DOES 1-50, 19 Defendants. 20 21 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between plaintiff, MONIQUE WILLIAMS, and 22 defendants, CITY OF RICHMOND and RHA HOUSING CORPORATION, as follows: 23 1. Defendants the CITY OF RICHMOND and RHA HOUSING CORPORATION 24 have collectively reached a settlement with plaintiff MONIQUE WILLIAMS, for the total sum 25 of $40,000, in return for a dismissal with prejudice. Rather than incurring burdening the Court 26 with a formal motion for the determination of the good faith settlement, the parties conferred, 27 including disclosing the terms of the settlement with counsel for the other defendants, to permit 28 them to evaluate the settlement. The parties have all agreed to stipulate that the settlement is 1 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, 3 governs the determination of whether the above settlement is made in good faith. Where, as 4 here, “a district court sits in diversity, or hears state law claims based on supplemental 5 jurisdiction, the court applies substantive law to the state law claims.” Mason & Dixon 6 Intermodal, Inc. v. Lapmaster Int’l, 632 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2011); Galam v. Carmel (In re 7 Larry’s Apt., L.L.C.), 249 F.3d 832, 837 (9th Cir. 2001) (“It is well established that [u]nder the 8 Erie doctrine, federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law” (internal quotations 9 and citations omitted). “California Code of Civil Procedure §877 constitutes state substantive 10 law.” Mason, supra, 632 F.3d at 1060 (holding the district court correctly applied California 11 Code of Civil Procedure §877 as state substantive law to resolve motion to dismiss pursuant to 12 good faith settlement); Fed. Savings & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Butler, 904 F.2d 505, 511 (9th Cir. 13 1990) (holding that California Code of Civil Procedure §877 constitutes substantive law); See 14 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 16 claims against defendants, CITY OF RICHMOND and/or RHA HOUSING CORPORATION, 17 for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, shall be barred. 18 19 Dated: December 10, 2020 LAW OFFICES OF LEONARD S. BECKER 20 By: /s/ Leonard S. Becker Attorneys for Plaintiff 23 Dated: December 10, 2020 KNOX RICKSEN 24 25 By: /s/ Jane L. Trigero STEVEN R. ANTHONY 26 JANE L. TRIGERO Attorneys for Plaintiff 27 MONIQUE WILLIAMS 28 1 Dated: December 10, 2020 ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH, LLP 2 3 By: /s/ Mark F. Hazelwood MARK F. HAZELWOOD ERICA C. GONZALEZ 5 Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF RICHMOND and RHA HOUSING 7 8 Dated: December 10, 2020 FLESHER SCHAFF & SCHROEDER, INC. 9 By: /s/ Jeremy J. Schroeder Attorneys for Defendants 11 NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION dba AMTRAK and UNION 12 PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY 13 14 15 Dated: December 10, 2020 PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER & MOSKOWITZ, LLP 16 17 By: /s/ Oscar A. Pardo OSCAR A. PARDO 18 Attorneys for Defendants RHA RAD HOUSING PARTNERS LP, JSCO 19 FRIENDSHIP TRIANGLE LLC and THE JOHN STEWART COMPANY 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN AND THE PARTIES HAVING 3 || STIPULATED TO THE SAME, the Court finds that the above-stated STIPULATION is 4 | sanctioned by the Court and shall be and now is the Order of the Court. The settlement between 5 || plaintiff, MONIQUE WILLIAMS, and defendants, the CITY OF RICHMOND and RHA 6 | HOUSING CORPORATION, is hereby deemed to be a good faith settlement within the meaning 7 | and effect of California Code of Civil Procedure §§877 and 877.6. Any further claims of any 8 || other joint tortfeasors or co-obligors relating to the subject matter of this lawsuit against 9 | defendants, the CITY OF RICHMOND and RHA HOUSING CORPORATION, for equitable 10 || comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence 11 || or comparative fault are hereby barred and dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Code of Civil 12 | Procedure §877.6, subdivision (c). 8

15 | DATED: 12/16/2020 Copan Hagctflccs— YVONNE NZALEZ ROGERS 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 19-CV-00576-YGR