Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04358/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04358-35/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 42:9601 CERCLA

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RYAN SCHAEFFER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GREGORY VILLAGE PARTNERS, L.P., et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-04358-JST

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

DETERMINATION

Re: ECF No. 272

Before the Court is Gregory Village Partners, L.P. (“Gregory Village”) and VPI, Inc.’s

(“VPI”) Motion for Good Faith Settlement Determination. ECF No. 272. The Court will grant the 

motion and find that the settlement was made in good faith.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Ryan, Anne, and Reese Schaeffer (“Plaintiffs”) filed a lawsuit against Gregory 

Village, VPI, and other defendants in Contra Costa County Superior Court alleging personal injury 

and environmental contamination. ECF No. 1. The action was then removed to this Court. Id.

Plaintiffs assert claims for nuisance, trespass, negligence, waste, cost recovery under California’s

Hazardous Substance Account Act (“HSAA”), and for violations of Business and Professions 

Code §17200. Id. Plaintiffs bring additional claims against Gregory Village for intentional 

infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and 

negligent misrepresentation. Id. Plaintiffs seek damages and the abatement of the contamination. 

Id.

Plaintiffs allege that harmful contamination impacting Plaintiffs’ health and the value of 

their home originated from various businesses located at the neighboring shopping center (“the 

Property”). Id. ¶ 1. Plaintiffs also allege that leaks from the sanitary sewer contributed to the 

contamination. Id. ¶ 16. Plaintiffs contend that Gregory Village is liable, as the owner of the 

Case 3:13-cv-04358-JST Document 285 Filed 09/11/15 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Property, and that Gregory Village may have contributed to the contamination when it resurfaced 

the Property. Id. ¶¶ 41-45. Plaintiffs later filed a motion for partial summary judgment against 

Gregory Village for public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, negligence, negligence per se, 

declaratory relief, and cost recovery under HSAA. ECF No. 167. The Court granted in part 

Plaintiffs’ motion. ECF No. 224. 

On August 7, 2015, Defendants Gregory Village and VPI filed the instant motion for good 

faith settlement determination.

1

ECF No. 272. Plaintiffs submitted a joinder in support of the

motion. ECF No. 280. The parties request that the Court find the settlement was made in good 

faith pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 and contingent on the Court’s 

approval, to bar all claims against Gregory Village and VPI for contribution and indemnity; and 

dismiss with prejudice all causes of action asserted against them. In exchange for a full release of 

the claims, Gregory Village agrees to pay the Plaintiffs $235,000 and to purchase Plaintiffs’ home

for $700,000 (along with bearing the closing costs). ECF No. 274, Ex. A (settlement agreement 

and release). Plaintiffs also have the right to lease back Plaintiffs’ home rent free for the first six 

months and for $2,000 per month for the following six months. Id. Upon approval of this 

settlement agreement, Plaintiffs will request approval of a minor’s compromise for Plaintiff Reese 

Schaeffer. Id., Ex. A ¶ 6.3. No defendants oppose the motion.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under California law, “[w]here a release, dismissal with or without prejudice or a covenant 

not to sue or not to enforce judgment is given in good faith before verdict or judgment to one or 

more of a number of tortfeasors claimed to be liable for the same tort . . . [i]t shall discharge the 

tortfeasor to whom it is given from all liability for any contribution to any other tortfeasors.” CAL.

CIV. PRO. CODE § 877. As a check on the validity of settlement agreements that might affect joint 

 

1

To date, the Court has approved the settlements between Plaintiffs and Defendant Piccolo 

Properties, L.P, see ECF No. 95; between Plaintiffs and Defendant Central Contra Costa Sanitary 

District, see ECF No. 220; and between Plaintiffs and Defendants Chevron U.S.A. Inc., MB 

Enterprises, Inc., Massoud Enrahimi, and Bhagdeep S. Dhaliwal, see ECF No. 282. Also before 

the Court is the motion for good faith settlement determination between Plaintiffs and Joseph J. 

Lee, Moon S. Lim, and Jiewon Lim. See ECF No. 276.

Case 3:13-cv-04358-JST Document 285 Filed 09/11/15 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

tortfeasors not a party to the settlement, California law further requires the court to make a 

determination that a settlement has been entered in good faith before that settlement can become 

final.2Id. § 877.6. The section provides further 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 negligence or comparative fault.” Id. § 877.6(c).

A settlement is made in good faith if is within a “reasonable range” of the settling parties’ 

proportionate share of liability to the plaintiff. Tech-Bilt Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc., 38 

Cal. 3d 488, 499 (1985). Courts, in making a good faith settlement determinations consider the 

following factors: (1) “a rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery and the settlor’s 

proportionate liability”; (2) “the amount paid in settlement”; (3) “the allocation of settlement 

proceeds among plaintiffs”; (4) “a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he 

would if he were found liable after trial”; (5) “the financial conditions and insurance policy limits 

of settling defendants”; and (6) “the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to 

injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.” Id. (citation omitted). Any party opposing an 

application for good-faith settlement bears the burden of proving “that the settlement is so far ‘out 

of the ballpark’ in relation to these factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the 

statute.” Id. at 499-500; see also CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 877.6(d).

When no party objects to the proposed settlement, the court may bypass the Tech-Bilt

factors and enter a finding of good faith when presented merely with “the barebones motion which 

sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief 

background of the case.” City of Grand Terrace v. Super. Ct. of San Bernardino Cnty., 192 Cal. 

App. 3d 1251, 1261 (1987); PAG-Daly City, LLC v. Quality Auto Locators, Inc., No. C 12-3907 

WHA, 2014 WL 807415, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2014).

/ / /

 

2 Because state-law claims predominate in the action, section 877.6 applies to this settlement. See 

Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corp. v. Butler, 904 F.2d 505, 511 (9th Cir. 1990) (applying 

section 877.6 in analogous circumstances).

Case 3:13-cv-04358-JST Document 285 Filed 09/11/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

III. ANALYSIS

The Court has reviewed Gregory Village and VPI’s motion, the supporting declarations 

and exhibits, and Plaintiffs’ joinder and declaration. Moving defendants provided notice to all 

non-settling defendants. No defendant has opposed the motion. Because no party contests the 

motion, it is unnecessary to weigh the Tech-Bilt factors. City of Grand Terrace, 192 Cal. App. 3d 

at 1261. The joint motion is therefore granted.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the unopposed motion for determination of 

good faith settlement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-04358-JST Document 285 Filed 09/11/15 Page 4 of 4