Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04320/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04320-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 423
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Cause of Action: 28:0157 Motion for Withdrawal of Reference

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re

ARTLOAN FINANCIAL SERVICES,

Debtor.

JANINA M. HOSKINS, Trustee in 

Bankruptcy of the Estate of ARTLOAN 

FINANCIAL SERVICES,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAY PARKER GAYLORD, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-04320-JST

ORDER ESTABLISHING “GOOD 

FAITH” SETTLEMENT AND BARRING 

INDEMNITY CLAIMS AGAINST 

SETTLING DEFENDANTS

Re: ECF No. 12.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Janina M. Hoskins, Trustee in Bankruptcy (“Plaintiff”), has moved for an order 

establishing that the settlement in this action was entered into in “good faith” within the meaning 

of Section 877.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 12. Pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds that the parties’ briefs 

have thoroughly addressed the issues and that the matter is suitable for disposition without oral 

argument. The January 9, 2014 hearing on this matter is hereby VACATED.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

On September 9, 2013, the Court granted a motion by Defendants Wiegel Law Group, 

PLC and Andrew J. Wiegel to withdraw the Bankruptcy Court reference in the above-captioned 

Case 3:13-cv-04320-JST Document 23 Filed 01/03/14 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

case. On November 11, after reaching a settlement with Defendants Wiegel Law Group, Wiegel 

& Fried, LLP, Andrew J. Wiegel and Clifford Fried (“the Wiegel Defendants”), Plaintiff filed the 

instant motion. ECF No. 12. The Wiegel Defendants have joined in the motion, ECF Nos. 19, 20 

& 21, and no party has opposed it. 

B. Jurisdiction

“[T]he district courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all cases under title 

11 [the Bankruptcy Code].” 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a).

C. Legal Standard

Federal courts apply Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 877 and 877.6’s “good faith” settlement 

provisions to the settlement of state-law causes of action. See Mason & Dixon Intermodal, Inc. v. 

Lapmaster Int’l LLC, 632 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2011). “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.” Cal. 

Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6(c). The court will determine that a settlement is “in good faith” when the 

settlement “is within the reasonable range of the settling tortfeasor’s proportional share of 

comparative liability for the plaintiff’s injuries.” Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & 

Associates 38 Cal.3d 488, 499 (1985). 

In making this determination, the court considers: “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 a settlor should pay less 

in settlement than he would if he were found liable after trial; 5. The financial conditions and 

insurance policy limits of settling defendants; and, 6. The existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious 

conduct aimed to injure the interest of non-settling defendants.” Yanez v. United States, 989 F.2d 

323, 328 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Tech-Bilt, 213 37 Cal. 3d at 499-500).

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff has brought only state-law causes of action against the Wiegel Defendants. See

Case 3:13-cv-04320-JST Document 23 Filed 01/03/14 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Northern District of California

Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 1-6. Therefore, Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 877.6’s “good faith” 

provisions apply to the settlement of those claims.

In the proposed settlement, the Wiegel Defendants will pay the Bankruptcy Estate

$210,000 and Plaintiff will execute a comprehensive release and dismiss her claims against them 

with prejudice. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that all defendants in this action have caused 

damages “in excess of 3,000,000.” (The claims against the remaining defendants have been 

settled for a total of $300,000.) In light of the costs of litigation, the Wiegel Defendants’ 

defenses, and the limits in available insurance coverage, Plaintiff’s total recovery is reasonable, as 

is the Wiegel Defendants’ proportionate contribution to that recovery. 

This settlement is allocated to only one Plaintiff, there is no evidence of collusion, and the 

case has been aggressively litigated. Perhaps most importantly, no party in this action has ever 

articulated a potential claim for indemnity against the Wiegel Defendants in the significant time 

that the bankruptcy case has been pending, and no opposition to this motion has been filed. 

The Court concludes, after considering all of the Tech-Bilt factors, that the settlement 

between the Estate and the Wiegel Defendants was entered into in “good faith” within the 

meaning of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 877.6, and that the settling defendants are

entitled to the relief requested.

IV. CONCLUSION

Good cause appearing:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the settlement between the Plaintiff and Defendants 

Wiegel Law Group, Wiegel & Fried, LLP, Andrew J. Wiegel, and Clifford Fried is deemed to be a 

“good faith” settlement within the meaning of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 877.6.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil 

Procedure Section 877.6.(c), Defendants Ray Parker Gaylord, Anthony Barreiro, and any other 

alleged joint torfeasor or co-obligor, including Andrews Kurth LLP are barred from filing any 

claims against Wiegel Law Group, Wiegel & Fried, LLP, Andrew J. Wiegel, and Clifford Fried, 

their partners, associates, employees, and other affiliates released by the subject “Settlement 

Case 3:13-cv-04320-JST Document 23 Filed 01/03/14 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Agreement and Mutual Release of Claims” for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or

comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2014

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-04320-JST Document 23 Filed 01/03/14 Page 4 of 4