Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02080/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02080-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 130
Nature of Suit: Miller Act
Cause of Action: 40:270 Miller Act

---

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

ORDER RE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT- 1

2:06-CV-02080-RRB-KJM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:06-CV-02080-RRB-KJM

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH

SETTLEMENT AND ENTRY OF A BAR

ORDER AT DOCKET 58

At Docket 58 are Third-Party Defendants GEM Engineering,

Inc. and Michael Akavan (hereinafter collectively referred to as

"GEM") with a Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement and

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

for the use and benefit of

HELIX ELECTRIC, INC., a

California corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SKANSKA USA BUILDING, INC., a

corporation; RQ CONSTRUCTION,

INC., a corporation; SKANSKA

USA BUILDING, INC./RQ

CONSTRUCTION, INC., a joint

venture; TRAVELERS CASUALTY

AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA,

a corporation; FIDELITY AND

DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, a

corporation; and DOES 1

through 20, inclusive,

Defendant(s).

______________________________

AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS

Case 2:06-cv-02080-RRB -KJM Document 83 Filed 12/11/07 Page 1 of 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

1 Inasmuch as the Court concludes the parties have

submitted documents which thoroughly discuss the law and evidence

in support of their positions, it further concludes oral argument

is neither necessary nor warranted with regard to the instant

matter. See Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County Inc., 171 F.3d

1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1999)(explaining that if the parties provided

the district court with complete memoranda of the law and evidence

in support of their positions, ordinarily oral argument would not

be required).

ORDER RE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT- 2

2:06-CV-02080-RRB-KJM

Entry of a Bar Order. The motion is opposed at Docket 67. Having

thoroughly reviewed the pleadings, as well as the various papers

and/or declarations relevant thereto, the motion at Docket 58 is

hereby GRANTED.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and/or DECLARED that:

1. The settlement between SRQ and GEM, Shadpour and MA

Engineers was reached in good faith and in accordance with §§ 877

and 877.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and Tech-Bilt,

Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates, 38 Cal. 3d 488 (1985);

2. Any and all present claims against GEM, Shadpour and

MA Engineers for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or

comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or

comparative fault are hereby DISMISSED; and

/ / / 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-02080-RRB -KJM Document 83 Filed 12/11/07 Page 2 of 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

ORDER RE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT- 3

2:06-CV-02080-RRB-KJM

3. Any claims against GEM, Shadpour and MA Engineers

for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative

indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault

arising out of, or related to, the transactions or occurrences at

issue in this matter are forever BARRED.

ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2007.

S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02080-RRB -KJM Document 83 Filed 12/11/07 Page 3 of 3