Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02010/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02010-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12102 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Disability Definition

---

1 

16cv2010-MMA (NLS) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NAOMI SHENEMAN, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

TRAVELODGE HOTELS, INC. and 

SOTAL UNIVERSITY INC. d/b/a 

TRAVELODGE OF LA MESA, 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 16cv2010-MMA (NLS) 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 

TRAVELODGE HOTELS, INC.’S EX 

PARTE MOTION FOR GOOD 

FAITH SETTLEMENT 

DETERMINATION 

[Doc. No. 19] 

 Defendant Travelodge Hotels, Inc. (“THI”) moves ex parte for a good faith 

settlement determination pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 877 and 

877.6. The motion is unopposed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS

THI’s motion. 

DISCUSSION

California Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6(a)(2) provides, in relevant part: 

[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 

Case 3:16-cv-02010-MMA-NLS Document 20 Filed 06/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

16cv2010-MMA (NLS) 

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

of service shall be filed with the court. Within 25 days of the mailing of the 

notice, application, and proposed order, or within 20 days of personal service, 

a nonsettling party may file a notice of motion to contest the good faith of the 

settlement. If none of the nonsettling 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. 

“A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any 

other joint tortfeasor 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.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6(c). 

The Ninth Circuit has held that, although the procedures set forth in section 877.6 “do not 

govern a federal action . . . nothing is to prevent the district court from granting a motion 

for an early determination of the good faith question. In fact, it makes eminent good 

sense to do so.” Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Butler, 904 F.2d 505, 511 (9th Cir. 

1990). 

 THI filed the pending motion and provided notice of the motion on May 15, 2017. 

Although twenty-five days has not elapsed as required by section 877.6, the Court is not 

bound by this procedural limitation, the record is clear that all parties received notice of 

the proposed settlement, and no party objects to its terms. See Butler, 904 F.2d at 511. 

Accordingly, the Court turns to the merits of THI’s motion. 

When “making a determination that a settlement was made in good faith pursuant 

to section 877.6(a)(2), a court considers the following: (1) the amount of the settlement; 

(2) a rough approximation of plaintiff’s total recover[y] and the settlers’ proportionate 

liability; (3) allocation of settlement proceeds among the [plaintiffs]; (4) the settlers [sic] 

financial condition and insurance limits; (5) evidence of fraud or collusion; and (5) a 

recognition that a settler should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found 

liable at trial.” McCallson v. Perry, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12544 *4-5 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 

2011) (citing Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates, 38 Cal. 3d 488, 499-500, 

(1985)). Here, all parties are represented by competent counsel, who have chosen not to 

Case 3:16-cv-02010-MMA-NLS Document 20 Filed 06/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

16cv2010-MMA (NLS) 

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

oppose the terms of the settlement, nor THI’s request that the Court deem the settlement 

to have been made in good faith. There is no evidence the settlement resulted from fraud, 

collusion, or tortious conduct. Further, the Court finds the settlement fair and reasonable, 

and in Plaintiff’s best interest. Accordingly, in the absence of any objection, and based 

on the existing record in this case, the Court concludes Plaintiff’s settlement with THI 

was made in good faith. 

CONCLUSION

 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS THI’s motion and finds that THI’s 

settlement with Plaintiff was made in good faith pursuant to the standards set forth in 

California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 877 and 877.6. This determination bars any other 

joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against THI for equitable 

comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative 

negligence or comparative fault. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: June 5, 2017 _______________________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-02010-MMA-NLS Document 20 Filed 06/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3