Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00387/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00387-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:2271 Federal Tort Claims 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

1 09cv0387 BTM(JMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK W. MICHELL; MARY

CHRISTINE MICHELL; CHRISTOPHER

DAMITZ; LORI NUNEZ and LUIS

NUNEZ, IV, as individuals,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09cv0387 BTM(JMA)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH

SETTLEMENT AND MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE INTERPLEADER

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

COURNTEY NUNEZ; and DOES 1

through 50,

Defendant.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Cross Complainant,

 v.

CHRISTOPHER DAMITZ; FRANK W.

MICHELL; and ROES 1-20, inclusive,

Cross Defendants.

Case 3:09-cv-00387-CAB-BGS Document 70 Filed 05/31/11 Page 1 of 5
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 09cv0387 BTM(JMA)

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Third Party Plaintiff

 v.

FRANK MODICA; THE EXECUTOR OR

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF

LUIS NUNEZ III; PHI HUU NGUYEN;

JORGE A.C. CLEMENTS; JOHN WEST;

ROBERT LOU; BRIAN K. JOHNSON;

MAURICIO VILLAREAL; and ROES 21-

50, inclusive,

Third Party Defendants.

Cross-Defendant Christopher Damitz and Third-Party Defendants Brian Johnson,

Frank Modica, Robert Lou, and Phi (David) Nguyen have filed a motion for determination of

good faith settlement and a motion for leave to file an interpleader as part of the good faith

settlement. For the reasons discussed below, the motions are DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

This litigation arises out of a series of accidents on August 27, 2006, on State Route

94, in San Diego County. Frank Modica, who was riding a motorcycle, was involved in a

collision with a bicyclist. The United States Border Patrol arrived at the scene of the accident

and, according to Plaintiffs, parked their vehicles in such a manner as to unreasonably block

the road and traffic. A group of motorcycle riders, including Plaintiffs and the Third-Party

Defendants, came upon the scene at different times, and crashed due to the blockage. Luis

S. Nunez, III suffered fatal injuries and Frank W. Michell and Christopher Damitz suffered

nonfatal injuries.

On February 26, 2009, Frank W. Michell, Mary Christine Michell, and Christopher

Damitz filed their complaint against the United States, alleging negligence and the creation

of a dangerous condition on public property. On March 9, 2009, Lori Nunez and Luis Nunez,

IV, filed their action against the United States, asserting claims for negligence and wrongful

Case 3:09-cv-00387-CAB-BGS Document 70 Filed 05/31/11 Page 2 of 5
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 09cv0387 BTM(JMA)

death. The cases were subsequently consolidated.

On January 20, 2010, the United States filed a cross-complaint against Christopher

Damitz and Frank Michell and a third-party complaint against Frank Modica, the Executor or

Administrator of the Estate of Luis Nunez III, Phi Huu Nguyen, Jorge A.C. Clements, John

West, Robert Lou, Brian K. Johnson; and Mauricio Villareal. The United States alleges that

the cross-defendants and third-party defendants engaged in behavior that caused the death,

injury, and damages of Plaintiffs. Specifically, the United States alleges that they were

engaged in dangerous street-racing on April 27, 2006, and were speeding east-bound on

State Route 94, in related but sometimes briefly separated packs, toward the Modica-bicyclist

collision site. The United States brought claims for negligence, indemnity and contribution,

apportionment, and declaratory relief.

On February 18, 2010, third-party defendant John West filed his own counter-claim

against the United States and cross-claims against the third-party defendants, seeking

indemnity based on equitable principles of comparative fault.

II. DISCUSSION

The moving defendants, Cross-Defendant Christopher Damitz and Third-Party

Defendants Brian Johnson, Frank Modica, Robert Lou, and Phi (David) Nguyen (collectively

“Settling Defendants”), have reached a settlement with the United States and seek a

determination by the Court that the settlement is in good faith as well as an order barring any

future claims, arising from or related to the accident, against the Settling Defendants by any

party to this litigation or anyone else.

Under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6, the determination by the court that a settlement

between the plaintiff and one or more alleged tortfeasors was made in good faith “shall bar

any other joint torfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor

or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity,

based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” A bar order issued pursuant to §

877.6 may not extinguish claims other than claims for contribution and indemnity or artfully

Case 3:09-cv-00387-CAB-BGS Document 70 Filed 05/31/11 Page 3 of 5
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

4 09cv0387 BTM(JMA)

pled claims that amount to claims for contribution and indemnity. Heritage Bond Litig. v. U.S.

Trust Corp., N.A., 546 F.3d 667, 681 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, in Heritage, the Ninth Circuit

vacated a bar order entered in a securities fraud class action because it barred a non-settling

defendant from bringing independent, non-indemnity or contribution claims against the

settling defendants. 

Although Settling Defendants acknowledge that a bar order issued pursuant to § 877.6

may not bar claims other than those for contribution and indemnity, Settling Defendants ask

that the Court bar all claims against them that arise out of the accident on August 27, 2006.

Settling Defendants explain that since the settlement requires the payment of the Settling

Defendants’ insurance policy proceeds, a material term of the settlement is that the Settling

Defendants will be free from any further claims, “not only equitable indemnity or

apportionment claims; but also that the settling Defendants will not be at risk of exposure to

the underlying Plaintiffs or any other non-settling party that contends they maintain a direct,

non-barred cause of action against the settling parties.” (Mem. of P. & A at 2:21-23.) The

Settlement Agreement itself provides: 

It is intended that these Settling Defendants shall be released and discharged

from any and all further exposure to any and all liability or potential liability to

any party who claims or may hereinafter claim a right or cause of action for

damages or other relief arising from or related to the accident occurring on

August 27, 2006. 

(Settlement Agreement, ¶ 10.) The settlement is contingent on this Court releasing and

discharging Settling Defendants from any further liability or exposure to any party.

(Settlement Agreement, ¶ 5.)

However, Settling Defendants do not provide the Court with any legal authority

supporting the issuance of such a broad bar order. Section 877.6 clearly does not allow for

such relief, and Settling Defendants do not point to any other statutes or legal precedent that

permit the Court to issue such a bar order. 

Even if it was within the discretion of the Court to bar non-indemnity/contribution

claims against Settling Defendants, the Court would not do so. It would hardly be fair to bar

individuals not party to this suit from bringing independent claims not based on indemnity or

Case 3:09-cv-00387-CAB-BGS Document 70 Filed 05/31/11 Page 4 of 5
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

5 09cv0387 BTM(JMA)

contribution against Settling Defendants.

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons discussed above, the Motion for Determination of Good Faith

Settlement and the Motion for Leave to File Interpleader are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 31, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00387-CAB-BGS Document 70 Filed 05/31/11 Page 5 of 5