Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00287/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00287-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory 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

For the Northern District of California 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARLON MONTOYA, individually and 

on behalf of all others 

similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

SLM CORPORATION; SALLIE MAE, 

INC.; and GENESYS 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS LABORATORIES, 

INC., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 3:14-CV-00287-SC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH 

SETTLEMENT 

 Now before the Court is Plaintiff Marlon Montoya's motion for 

determination of good faith settlement by and between Plaintiff and 

Defendant Genesys Telecommunications ("Genesys") (the "Genesys 

Settlement"). ECF No. 69 ("Mot."). The motion is unopposed (ECF 

No. 66) and is appropriate for resolution without oral argument 

pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b). Plaintiff has already settled with 

the other defendants in this case (ECF No. 64), and those 

defendants have not objected to the Genesys Settlement. For the 

reasons provided below, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. 

 This action arises from Plaintiff's claim that he received 

Case 3:14-cv-00287-SC Document 70 Filed 08/06/15 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

For the Northern District of California 

calls and text messages on his cellular telephone from an automatic 

telephone dialing system without his prior express consent in 

violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 

(the "TCPA"). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants SLM Corporation 

("SLM") and Sallie Mae, through their agent Genesys, sent text 

messages seeking to collect an alleged student loan debt. 

Plaintiff settled and the Court dismissed all claims against SLM 

and Sallie Mae on May 28, 2015. A month later, Plaintiff moved for 

an order to confirm a settlement agreement with Genesys as a good 

faith settlement. 

 When a plaintiff settles with one or more alleged tortfeasors, 

California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 authorizes the 

Court to determine that the settlement was made in good faith, and 

that all claims against the settling party for contribution or 

indemnity are barred: 

[A] settling party may give notice of settlement to all 

parties and to the court, together with an application 

for determination of good faith settlement and a proposed 

order . . . . Within 25 days of the mailing of the 

notice, application, and proposed order, or within 20 

days of personal service, a nonsettling party may file a 

notice of motion to contest the good faith of the 

settlement. If none of the nonsettling parties files a 

motion within 25 days of mailing of the notice, 

application, and proposed order, or within 20 days of 

personal service, the court may approve the settlement. 

A determination by the court that the settlement was made 

in good faith 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 fault. 

The California Supreme Court has held that the purpose of 

California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 is to promote the 

/// 

Case 3:14-cv-00287-SC Document 70 Filed 08/06/15 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

For the Northern District of California 

equitable sharing of costs among parties at fault and to encourage 

settlements. See Tech-Bilt v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates, 38 C.3d 

488, 495 (1985) (approving River Garden Farms v. Superior Court, 26 

C.A.3d 986 (1972)). 

The determination of whether a settlement is in good faith is 

left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Id. at 501. The 

court may inquire, among other things, "whether the amount of the 

settlement is within the reasonable range of the settling 

tortfeasor's proportional share of comparative liability for the 

plaintiff's injuries." Id. at 499. The policies underlying the 

good faith requirement 

require that a number of factors be taken into account 

including a rough approximation of plaintiffs' total 

recovery and the settlor's proportionate liability, the 

amount paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement 

proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a 

settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he 

were found liable after a trial. Other relevant 

considerations include the financial conditions and 

insurance policy limits of settling defendants, as well 

as the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct 

aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants. 

Id. 

 Here, Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss all individual claims 

against Genesys with prejudice and all class action claims without 

prejudice. Mot. at 4. Plaintiff further waives and releases any 

right or claims he may have to serve as a class representative or 

named plaintiff in any class-action suit brought against Genesys 

relating to any claims set forth or which could have been set forth 

in this litigation. Id. In consideration, Genesys agrees to pay 

Plaintiff $2,000 and Plaintiff's counsel $13,000. Id. 

Plaintiff has already settled with the other defendants in 

/// 

Case 3:14-cv-00287-SC Document 70 Filed 08/06/15 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

For the Northern District of California 

this case, and the other defendants have neither objected to the 

Genesys Settlement nor opposed this motion. The Genesys Settlement 

therefore will not result in an inequitable sharing of costs among 

defendants, nor is it "the product of collusion, fraud, or tortious 

conduct aimed to injure the interests" of the other defendants. 

Tech-Bilt, 38 C.3d at 499. 

The Genesys Settlement, however, does not reflect the 

principle "that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he 

would if he were found liable after a trial." Tech-Bilt, 38 C.3d 

at 499. The TCPA provides statutory damages in the amount of $500 

per violation. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B). Plaintiff alleges that 

he received three unauthorized text messages, making the agreed 

upon settlement -- a total of $15,000 ($13,000 of which will go to 

Plaintiff's attorney) -- far larger than Plaintiff's potential 

recovery at trial. 

Nevertheless, the Court finds the Genesys Settlement to have 

been made in good faith insofar as it is consistent with the dual 

purposes of California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 to 

promote the equitable sharing of costs among parties and to 

encourage settlements. See Id. at 495. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion. 

 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: August 6, 2015 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:14-cv-00287-SC Document 70 Filed 08/06/15 Page 4 of 4