Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02080/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02080-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 130
Nature of Suit: Miller Act
Cause of Action: 40:270 Miller 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

ORDER RE THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT- 1

2:06-CV-02080-RRB-KJM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. 2:06-CV-02080-RRB-KJM

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH

SETTLEMENT AND ENTRY OF A BAR

ORDER AT DOCKET 80

At Docket 80 are Third Party Defendants Stedman & Dyson

Structural Engineers and Christopher Kamp (collectively “SDSE”)

with an unopposed Motion for Determination and Good Faith

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

for the use and benefit of

HELIX ELECTRIC, INC., a

California corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SKANSKA USA BUILDING, INC., a

corporation; RQ CONSTRUCTION,

INC., a corporation; SKANSKA

USA BUILDING, INC./RQ

CONSTRUCTION, INC., a joint

venture; TRAVELERS CASUALTY

AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA,

a corporation; FIDELITY AND

DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, a

corporation; and DOES 1

through 20, inclusive,

Defendant(s).

______________________________

AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS

Case 2:06-cv-02080-RRB -KJM Document 82 Filed 11/27/07 Page 1 of 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

1 Inasmuch as the Court concludes SDSE has submitted

documents which thoroughly discuss the law and evidence in support

of its unopposed position, it further concludes oral argument is

neither necessary nor warranted with regard to the instant matter.

See Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County Inc. , 171 F.3d 1197,

1200 (9th Cir. 1999)(explaining that if the parties provided the

district court with complete memoranda of the law and evidence in

support of their positions, ordinarily oral argument would not be

required). As a result, the oral argument presently scheduled for

December 5, 2007, is hereby VACATED.

ORDER RE THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT- 2

2:06-CV-02080-RRB-KJM

Settlement and Entry of a Bar Order. Having thoroughly reviewed

the same, as well as the relevant documents and/or papers attached

thereto, the motion at Docket 80 is hereby GRANTED.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and/or DECLARED that:

1. The settlement between SDSE, on the one hand, and

Third Party Plaintiff SKANSA USA Building, Inc. / RQ Construction,

Inc. (“SRQ”), on the other hand, was reached in good faith and in

accordance with §§ 877 and 877.6 of the California Code of Civil

Procedure and Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates, 38

Cal. 3d 488 (1985);

2. Any and all present claims against SDSE, for

indemnity, equitable comparative contribution, or partial or

comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or

comparative fault are hereby DISMISSED; and 

3. Any claims against SDSE, for indemnity, equitable

comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity,

based on comparative negligence or comparative fault arising out

Case 2:06-cv-02080-RRB -KJM Document 82 Filed 11/27/07 Page 2 of 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

ORDER RE THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT- 3

2:06-CV-02080-RRB-KJM

of, or related to, the transactions or occurrences at issue in this

matter are forever BARRED.

ENTERED this 26th day of November, 2007.

S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02080-RRB -KJM Document 82 Filed 11/27/07 Page 3 of 3