Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00812/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00812-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MINNESOTA LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 11cv00812 BTM (POR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR DETERMINATION OF

v. GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

BRIAN MICHAEL PHILPOT, et al.,

Defendants.

Pending before the Court is a motion for determination of good faith settlement

filed by Plaintiff Minnesota Life Insurance Company and Defendant Alex Almeida

(ECF No. 121). For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS the motion for

determination of good faith settlement. 

I. BACKGROUND

This action arises out of an alleged fraudulent scheme, coordinated among the

various defendants (insurance sales agents, their employers, and their funding entities),

to elicit large sales commissions from Plaintiff for policies that were deliberately

allowed to lapse— resulting in Plaintiff paying more in sales commissions than it

earned in policy payments. For a more comprehensive overview of the events giving

1 11cv00812 BTM (POR)

Case 3:11-cv-00812-BTM-DHB Document 136 Filed 08/19/13 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

rise to this lawsuit, see the Court’s September 25, 2012 Order re Motions to Dismiss

(ECF No. 101). 

On February 4, 2013, Plaintiff and Defendant Almeida filed a joint motion for

determination of good faith settlement (ECF No. 121), along with the accompanying

settlement agreement (filed under seal). Thematerial terms ofthe settlement agreement

provide:1

• Mr. Almeida will cause a certain sum of money to be paid to

Plaintiff.

• Each of the parties shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs. 

• In return for the payments, Plaintiff will dismiss the case asto Mr.

Almeida.

On July 22, 2013, the Court ordered the parties to submit evidence as to Mr.

Almeida’s individual liability (ECF No. 133). Plaintiffsubmitted the evidence on July

26, 2013 (see ECF Nos. 134 & 135).

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Minnesota Life and Defendant Alex Almeida seeks a determination by

the Court that their settlement isin good faith. As discussed below, the Court findsthat

it is.

Under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6(a)(1), “[a]ny party to an action wherein it is

alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors shall be entitled to a hearing on the

issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and

one or more alleged tortfeasors . . . .” If the court determines that the settlement was

made in good faith, such determination “shall bar any other joint tortfeasor from any

further claims against the settling tortfeasor for equitable comparative contribution, or

partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative

The Court excepts from the sealing the terms of the settlement set forth in this 1

Order.

2 11cv00812 BTM (POR)

Case 3:11-cv-00812-BTM-DHB Document 136 Filed 08/19/13 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

fault.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6(c). A party asserting the lack of good faith bears

the burden of proof on that issue. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6(d).

In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc., 38 Cal. 3d 488, 499 (1985), a

case in which the good faith nature of the settlement was disputed, the California

Supreme Court set forth a number of factors to be considered by the court in

determining whether a settlement isin good faith, including:(1) a rough approximation

of plaintiffs’ total recovery and the settlors’ proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid

in settlement; (3) the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (4) a

recognition that the settlor should pay lessin settlement than he would if he were found

liable after trial; (5) the financial condition and insurance policy limits of settling

defendant; and (6) the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure

the interests of non-settling defendants. 

The California Court of Appeal has held that it is incumbent upon the court

deciding the motion for good faith settlement to consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt

factors only when the good faith nature of a settlement is disputed. City of Grand

Terrace v. Superior Court, 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1261 (1987). “That is to say, when

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.” Id.; see also Hernandez v. Sutter Medical Center of Santa Rosa, 2009 WL

322937 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2009) (granting motion for good faith settlement without

performing Tech-Bilt analysis because there were no objections); Bonds v. Nicoletti

Oil, Inc., 2008 WL 4104272 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2008) (declining to weigh Tech-Bilt

factors because there was no opposition to the motion for good faith settlement). 

Here, no opposition or objections have been filed to the motion. Accordingly,

the Court does not deem it necessary to engage in a comprehensive Tech-Bilt analysis.

The Court has reviewed the terms of the settlement, as well as the supplemental

evidence submitted by Plaintiff regarding Mr. Almeida’s individual liability, and is

satisfied that the settlement isin good faith. There is no evidence of collusion or fraud,

3 11cv00812 BTM (POR)

Case 3:11-cv-00812-BTM-DHB Document 136 Filed 08/19/13 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and the amount to be paid by Mr. Almeida under the settlement agreement is

reasonable given Plaintiff’s estimation of his individual liability as compared to the

cost of further litigation.

The Court concludes that the settlement is in good faith and GRANTS the

motion. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the settling defendant’s motion for

determination of good faith settlement is GRANTED. The settlements reached

between Plaintiff and Defendant Alex Almeida is found to be in good faith within the

meaning of Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6, and any other joint tortfeasor is barred from

any further claims against Defendant Almeida for equitable comparative contribution

or comparative indemnity based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 19, 2013

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

4 11cv00812 BTM (POR)

Case 3:11-cv-00812-BTM-DHB Document 136 Filed 08/19/13 Page 4 of 4