Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01866/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01866-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

27

28

cal 

1 05cv1866

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHATION MURPHY,

Plaintiff,

v.

REPOSSESSION SPECIALISTS, INC., dba

ABA RECOVERY SERVICES, INC.;

TRIAD FINANCIAL CORPORATION,

Defendants. 

AND ALL RELATED COUNTER-CLAIMS.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.05cv1866 BEN (AJB)

Report and Recommendation Granting

Application for Determination of Good 

Faith Settlement

[Doc. No. 30]

Defendant, Repossession Specialists, Inc. DBA ABA Recovery Service, Inc. filed an application

with the Court, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6(a)(2) for an order:

1. That the settlement between Defendant Repossession Specialists, Inc. DBA ABA

Recovery Service, Inc. and Plaintiff Shation Murphy is in good faith within the meaning

of California Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6;

2. That all pending and future cross-complaints for implied or equitable indemnity against

Repossession Specialists, Inc. DBA ABA Recovery Service, Inc. be dismissed with

prejudice; and

3. That all actual and potential claims by any other actual or potential parties against

Repossession Specialists, Inc. DBA ABA Recovery Service, Inc. for partial or comparative indemnity, including total or whole indemnity, equitable or comparative contribuCase 3:05-cv-01866-BEN-AJB Document 41 Filed 03/27/07 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

27

28

2 05cv1866

tion, partial or comparative indemnity, comparative negligence or comparative fault or

declaratory relief and negligence be dismissed with prejudice.

Initially Co-Defendant and Counter Claimant, Triad Financial Corporation, filed a response

[Doc. No. 37] to Repossession Specialists, Inc.’s Application for Good Faith Settlement Determination

objecting to the application on the grounds that Plaintiff had not yet executed the amended release in

this matter, so any determination would be premature until the final settlement agreement and amended

release were signed by the Plaintiff. On March 19, 2007, Repossession Specialists, notified the Court

and Triad Financial Corporation that Plaintiff executed the amended release. Triad Financial Corporation has since filed an Amended Response [Doc. No. 40] to Repossession Specialists’ Application for

Determination of Good Faith Settlement indicating that they no longer object to the application.

Discussion

When making good faith determinations the federal court may, in its discretion, conduct a

hearing pursuant to C.C.P. § 877.6 to determine if the settlement is being entered into in good faith. 

Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Co. v. Butler, 904 F.2d 505, 511 (9th Cir. 1990). The Butler court noted that

while C.C.P. § 877.6 procedures do not govern a federal court action, even if there is a provision for

California law to govern the settlement agreement, the discretion remains.

The standards to be applied by a court under section 877.6 when making a determination on a

good faith settlement are: (1) the amount of the settlement; (2) a rough approximation of plaintiff’s total

recovery and the settlers proportionate liability; (3) allocation of settlement proceeds among the

plaintiff’s settlement; (4) the settlers financial condition and insurance limits; (5) evidence of fraud or

collusion; and (5) a recognition that a settler should pay less in settlement that he would if he were

found liable at trial. See Tech-Built, Inc. v. Woodward Clyde and Associates, 38 Cal.3d 488 (1985).

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 877.6(a)(2):

 [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. The application shall

indicate the settling parties, and the basis, terms, and amount of the settlement. The notice, application,

and proposed order shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested. Proof of service shall be

filed with the court. Within 25 days of the mailing of the notice, application, and proposed order, or

Case 3:05-cv-01866-BEN-AJB Document 41 Filed 03/27/07 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

27

28

3 05cv1866

within 20 days of personal service, a non-settling party may file a notice of motion to contest the good

faith of the settlement. If none of the non-settling 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. The notice by a non-settling party shall be given in the manner provided in subdivision (b) of

Section 1005. However, this paragraph shall not apply to settlements in which a confidentiality

agreement has been entered into regarding the case or the terms of the settlement. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code

§ 877.6(a)(2) (2007). On December 11, 2006, Defendant Repossession Specialists, Inc. filed a Notice of

Settlement and an Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement. [Doc. No. 29 and 30]. 

Upon review of the settlement agreement reached in this case in light of the Tech-Built factors

set forth above and the non-opposition of co-defenants Triad Financial Corporation, this Court finds that

the settlement reached by and between Plaintiff and Defendant, Repossession Specialists, Inc. DBA

ABA Recovery Service, Inc., to have been made in good faith in accordance with the requirements set

forth in Tech-Built and Section 877.6.

Conclusion

Having reviewed the papers and given the non-opposition by Defendant Triad Financial

Corporation, the Court recommends that the Defendant, Repossession Specialists, Inc. DBA ABA

Recovery Service, Inc., Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement be GRANTED. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), these findings and recommendations are submitted

to the United States District Judge assigned to this case. Any party may file written objections with the

Court and serve a copy on all parties by April 2, 2007. The document should be captioned "Objections

to Report and Recommendation." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed by April 16,

2007. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.1991).

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 26, 2007

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:05-cv-01866-BEN-AJB Document 41 Filed 03/27/07 Page 3 of 3