Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02080/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02080-8/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 66

At Docket 66 are Third-Party Defendants Vasquez +

Marshall & Associates, Inc. and David R. Vasquez (hereinafter

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 93 Filed 12/18/07 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 the parties have

submitted documents which thoroughly discuss the law and evidence

in support of their positions, 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).

ORDER RE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT- 2

2:06-CV-02080-RRB-KJM

collectively referred to as "VMA") with a Motion for Determination

of Good Faith Settlement and Entry of a Bar Order. The motion is

opposed at Docket 67. Having thoroughly reviewed the pleadings, as

well as the various papers and/or declarations relevant thereto,

the motion at Docket 66 is hereby GRANTED.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and DECLARED that:

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

Third Party Plaintiff SKANSKA USA/RQ Construction (“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 VMA 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 VMA 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 93 Filed 12/18/07 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 17th day of December, 2007.

S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02080-RRB -KJM Document 93 Filed 12/18/07 Page 3 of 3