Williams v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: December 16, 2020
• Docket: 4:19-cv-00576
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 * * * 11 MONIQUE WILLIAMS, CASE NO. 4:19-cv-00576-YGR Contra Costa Co. Sup. Ct. Case No. C18-02144 12 Plaintiff, Complaint filed:11/8/18 Trial Date: 5/10/21 13 vs. 14 NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER STIPULATION AND ORDER CORPORATION dba AMTRAK; UNION DETERMINING GOOD FAITH 15 PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a SETTLEMENT corporation; CITY OF RICHMOND, a California 16 Government Entity; RHA RAD HOUSING PARTNERS LP; RHA HOUSING 17 CORPORATION; JSCO FRIENDSHIP TRIANGLE LLC; JOHN STEWART 18 COMPANY, and, DOES 1 – 50, 19 Defendants. 20 21 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between plaintiff, MONIQUE WILLIAMS, and 22 defendants, NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION dba AMTRAK, UNION 23 PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, CITY OF RICHMOND, RHA RAD HOUSING PARTNERS LP, 24 RHA HOUSING CORPORATION, JSCO FRIENDSHIP TRIANGLE LLC, and JOHN STEWART 25 COMPANY, as follows: 26 1. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION dba AMTRAK and UNION 27 PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY have collectively reached a settlement with plaintiff, the terms of 1 determination of the good faith of this settlement, the parties conferred, including disclosing the terms of 2 the settlement with counsel for the other defendants, to permit them to evaluate the settlement. The parties 3 have all agreed to stipulate that the settlement is reasonable and made in good faith pursuant to California 4 Code of Civil Procedure section 877, et seq. 5 2. California Code of Civil Procedure section 877, et seq., rather than federal common 6 law, governs the determination of whether the above settlement is made in good faith. Where, as here, 7 “a district court sits in diversity, or hears state law claims based on supplemental jurisdiction, the court 8 applies state substantive law to the state law claims.” Mason & Dixon Intermodal, Inc. v. Lapmaster 9 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, 10 837 (9th Cir. 2001) (“It is well established that [u]nder the Erie doctrine, federal courts sitting in 11 diversity apply state substantive law” (internal quotations and citations omitted). “California Code of 12 Civil Procedure section 877 constitutes state substantive law.” Mason, supra, 632 F.3d at 1060 13 (holding the district court correctly applied California Code of Civil Procedure section 877 as state 14 substantive law to resolve motion to dismiss pursuant to good faith settlement); Fed. Savings & Loan 15 Ins. Corp. v. Butler, 904 F.2d 505, 511 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that California Code of Civil 16 Procedure section 877 constitutes substantive law); See also Yanez v. United States, 989 F.2d 323, 17 327-28 (9th Cir. 1993.). 18 3. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6, all further 19 claims against defendants, NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION dba AMTRAK 20 and/or UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, for equitable comparative contribution, or partial 21 or comparative indemnity, shall be barred. 22 DATED: November 23, 2020 LAW OFFICES OF LEONARD S. BECKER 23 /s/ By _ _ 24 LEONARD S. BECKER Attorneys for plaintiff, 25 MONIQUE WILLIAMS 26 /// 27 //// 1 DATED: November 23, 2020 ALLEN, GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD & WERTH LLP 2 /s/ By _ _ 3 _ MARK HAZELWOOD Attorneys for defendants, 4 CITY OF RICHMOND and RHA HOUSING CORPORATION 5 DATED: November 23, 2020 PERRY, JOHNSON, ANDERSON, MILLER 6 & MOSKOWITZ, LLP. 7 /s/ By _ _ 8 OSCAR A. PARDO Attorneys for defendants, 9 RHA RAD HOUSING PARTNERS LP, JSCO FREINDSHIP TRIANGLE LLC and 10 THE JOHN STEWART COMPANY 11 DATED: November 23, 2020 FLESHER SCHAFF & SCHROEDER, INC. 12 /s/ By _ _ 13 JEREMY J. SCHROEDER Attorneys for defendants, 14 NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION dba AMTRAK and 15 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 ORDER 2 GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN AND THE PARTIES HAVING 3 STIPULATED TO THE SAME, the Court finds that the above-stated STIPULATION is sanctioned 4 || by the Court and shall be and now is the Order of the Court. The settlement between plaintiff, 5 || MONIQUE WILLIAMS, and defendants, NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION 6 || dba AMTRAK and UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, is hereby deemed to be a good faith 7 || settlement within the meaning and effect of California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 877 and 877.6. Any 8 || further claims of any other joint tortfeasors or co-obligors relating to the subject matter of this lawsuit 9 || against defendants, NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION dba AMTRAK and/or 10 |} UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or 11 || comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault are hereby barred and 12 || dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 877.6, subdivision (c). 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT defendants, NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER 14 |} CORPORATION dba AMTRAK and UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, are hereby dismissed 15 || from the action, with prejudice. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ig || DATED: _12/16/2020 _Lopeee Migtfflccs, 19 ONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28