Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01909/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01909-37/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Housing Discrimination

---

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

LaRELL FRANKLIN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ALLSTATE CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C-06-1909 MMC

ORDER GRANTING ALLSTATE

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH

SETTLEMENT

Before the Court is the motion filed February 20, 2008 by defendants Allstate

Insurance Company, Nicki Nicolai, Andrew Aspergren, Richard Reney, and Kathi Pardi

(collectively, “Allstate Defendants”), for the Court’s determination, pursuant to California

Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6, that the settlement between plaintiffs and such

defendants was in good faith. Defendants Scott D. Schwartz and Rust, Armenis &

Schwartz (collectively, “Schwartz Defendants”) have filed opposition, to which the Allstate

Defendants have replied. 

Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the

motion, the Court, having applied the factors set forth in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde

& Assoc., 38 Cal.3d 488 (1985), finds, for the reasons set forth by the Allstate Defendants, 

Case 3:06-cv-01909-MMC Document 197 Filed 03/27/08 Page 1 of 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

1

 In so finding, the Court has not relied on the Allstate Defendants’ argument that

any potential claim for indemnity by the Schwartz Defendants would be “time-barred,” (see

Reply at 5), nor has the Court made any determination with respect to such issue. Further,

although the Court sustains the Allstate Defendants’ evidentiary objections to the three

identified portions of the Chivers declaration, even if such additional evidence were

admitted, the Court’s determination as to good faith would remain unchanged.

2

the Schwartz Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing the settlement is “‘out

of the ballpark’ in relation to [such] factors,” see id. at 499-500, or otherwise “inconsistent

with the equitable objectives of the statute,” see id.

1

Accordingly, the Allstate Defendants’ motion is hereby GRANTED, and the

settlement between plaintiffs and the Allstate Defendants is hereby DETERMINED to be in

good faith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01909-MMC Document 197 Filed 03/27/08 Page 2 of 2