Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03536/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03536-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

JOHN TAM, et al.,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 07-3536 MEJ

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE MOTIONS FOR GOOD

FAITH SETTLEMENT; VACATING

HEARING

ORDER SCHEDULING CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Pending before the Court are two motions for good faith settlement determination: the first

filed by Defendants Defendants The Ant Commandos, Inc., Hong Lip Yow, and Raymond Yow

(collectively, "Ant Commandos Defendants") (Doc. #3); the second filed by John Tam, Corey Fong,

and Jamie Yang (collectively, "Tam Defendants") (Doc. #6). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b),

the Court finds it appropriate to take the motions under submission for decision without oral

argument and hereby VACATES the August 30, 2007 hearing. Based upon all papers filed to date,

the Court DENIES the motions.

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, a party to a proposed settlement

may move the Court for an order making a determination that the settlement was made in good faith.

Section 877.6 further provides that “[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

Case 3:07-cv-03536-MEJ Document 46 Filed 08/20/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

negligence or comparative fault.” Cal Civ Pro § 877.6(c). A settlement is deemed to be in good

faith if it is within the “reasonable range” of the settling tortfeasor's share of liability for the

plaintiff's injuries, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the particular case. 

Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assocs., 38 Cal.3d 488, 499 (1985). To determine whether a

proposed settlement fits that description, the Court should consider the following factors: (1) a rough

approximation of the settlor's proportionate liability; (2) the amount of the settlement; (3) the fact

that a settlor should pay less in settlement than the amount of damages for which the settlor would

be liable at trial; (4) the financial condition of the settling defendant; and (5) the existence or

absence of any collusion, fraud or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of any non-settling

defendants. Id.

In the present case, there appears to be disputed factual issues bearing on the degree of fault

of the settling defendants relative to the other alleged tortfeasors, as well the ability to pay and

overall financial condition of the settling defendants. There also appears to be factual issues

regarding Activision's potential recovery, with estimates greatly in excess of the proposed

settlements. In light of these factual issues, the Court cannot say for certain that the proffered

settlements are within a “reasonable range” of the Tam Defendants and Ant Commandos

Defendants' share of liability for Activision's alleged injuries. Further, the Court is sensitive to the

fact that Defendants Doug Kennedy and Reverb Communications, Inc. would remain in the case and

could potentially be held liable for far more than their proportionate liability. Therefore, the Court

must deny the motions for determination of good faith settlement.

Nothing in this Order is intended to preclude any defendants from renewing their motions if,

at some future point in the lawsuit, the factual issues surrounding total potential liability and an

approximation of each settlor's proportionate liability are more clear. 

Finally, as this case was transferred from another district and no case management order is in

place, the Court shall conduct a Case Management Conference on September 13, 2007 at 10:00 a.m.

in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. The parties shall

file a joint case management statement by September 6, 2007. In preparing their statement, the

Case 3:07-cv-03536-MEJ Document 46 Filed 08/20/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

parties shall utilize the format described in the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern

District of California, a copy of which may be found on the Court's website.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2007 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03536-MEJ Document 46 Filed 08/20/07 Page 3 of 3