Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02919/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02919-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
ANG Transport Inc.
Defendant
Tim Moore
Plaintiff
Moore Freight Brokers Inc.
Defendant
Travelers Property Casualty Company of America
Intervenor
Tuff Machinery LLC
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

TIM MOORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANG TRANSPORT INC., MOORE 

FREIGHT BROKERS INC., TUFF 

MACHINERY LLC,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-cv-02919 WBS KJN 

MEMORANDUM & ORDER RE: MOTION 

FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT 

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Tim Moore filed this lawsuit against 

defendants ANG Transport, Inc. (“ANG Transport”), Tuff Machinery 

LLC (“Tuff Machinery”), and Moore Brokers Inc., doing business as 

Moore Transportation Services (“Moore Transportation”), alleging 

violations of state and federal laws to recover costs of a 

tractor destroyed while in transport. Before the court now is 

ANG Transport’s motion for a determination of good faith 

settlement. (Docket No. 49.) 

I. Background

Case 2:18-cv-02919-WBS-KJN Document 55 Filed 01/24/20 Page 1 of 6
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

Plaintiff purchased a John Deere Model 650H LT Tractor 

from defendant Tuff Machinery in October 2017. (Compl. ¶ 7 

(Docket No. 1).) The parties agreed that Tuff Machinery would 

deliver the tractor to the plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 10.) Pursuant to 

that agreement, Tuff Machinery hired Moore Transport to act as 

the shipping broker for the tractor shipment. (Id. ¶ 11.) Moore 

Transport then hired ANG Transport to deliver the tractor. (Id.

¶ 12.) While transporting the tractor from Texas to California

in November 2017, ANG Transport’s truck transporting the tractor

was involved in an accident and the tractor was destroyed. (Id.

¶ 13.) The total estimated cost of replacement parts for the 

tractor was approximately $63,506.79. (Decl. of Stephen W. 

Robertson (“Robertson Decl.”) ¶ 3 (Docket No. 51).) 

After ANG Transport ignored plaintiff’s demand for 

payment, plaintiff filed this action against it alleging 

violation of the Carmack Amendment to Interstate Commerce Act, 49 

U.S.C. § 14706.1 (Compl. ¶¶ 26-35.) Following the filing, 

Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”) 

asserted a claim in subrogation against ANG Transport relating to 

the damage of a roller machine that occurred in the same 

accident.2 (Robertson Decl. ¶ 4.) Travelers’ claims exceeded 

$100,000. (Id.) Plaintiff, ANG Transport, and Travelers 

 

1 Plaintiff also brought a breach of contract claim 

against Tuff Machinery and a negligence claim against Moore 

Transportation. (Compl. ¶¶ 16-25, 36-46.) In July 2019, this 

court granted Moore Freight’s motion for good faith settlement 

(Docket No. 40) and granted Tuff Machinery’s motion to dismiss 

(Docket No. 41). 

2 Travelers did not file an independent complaint. 

(Robertson Decl. ¶ 4.) 

Case 2:18-cv-02919-WBS-KJN Document 55 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 6
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

proceeded through this court’s Voluntary Dispute Resolution 

Process and reached a settlement. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 7-8, Exs. B-C.) 

ANG Transport now seeks this court’s determination that the 

settlement was made in good faith. (Docket No. 49.) The motion 

is unopposed. (Pl.’s Statement of Non-Opp’n (Docket No. 54).) 

II. Discussion

A. Applicable Law

In California, state substantive law on settlements is 

codified at California Code of Civil Procedure Section 877. 

Section 877.6, the procedural mechanism for implementing § 877, 

is intended to promote the equitable sharing of costs among the 

parties at fault and encourage settlement. Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. 

Woodward-Clyde & Ass’n, 38 Cal. 3d 488, 494 (1985). While the 

procedures set forth in § 877.6 “do not govern a federal action” 

like the one here, “the substantive provisions of California law” 

are applicable. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Butler, 904 F.2d 

505, 511 (9th Cir. 1990).

Courts are permitted to approve a settlement under § 

877.6 if it was made in good faith. Cal. Civ. P. § 877.6. To 

assess whether a settlement was made in good faith, courts must 

determine whether the settlement is within the “reasonable range” 

of the settling tortfeasor’s share of liability for the 

plaintiffs’ injuries. Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal. 3d at 499. Courts 

consider the following, among other practical factors: (1) a 

rough approximation of the plaintiffs’ total recovery and the 

settlor’s proportionate liability; (2) the amount to be paid in 

settlement; (3) the allocation of settlement proceeds among the 

plaintiffs; (4) a recognition that a settlor should pay less in 

Case 2:18-cv-02919-WBS-KJN Document 55 Filed 01/24/20 Page 3 of 6
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

settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial; 

(5) the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of the 

settling defendants; and (6) the existence of collusion, fraud, 

or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of non-settling 

defendants. Id. Ultimately, the determination is left to the 

trial court’s discretion. Id. at 502.

B. Application to Plaintiff’s Claims

The first, second, and third Tech-Bilt factors consider 

whether the agreed upon settlement accurately reflects the 

settling parties’ proportionate liability and whether the 

allocation of the settlement proceeds is equitable under the 

circumstances. Id. at 499. Settlements need only be “in the 

ballpark” of the settling party’s proportionate share of 

liability, rather than calculated with exacting mathematical 

certainty. Id. at 501 n.9. Under the settlement agreement here, 

ANG Transport will pay a total of $100,000 between plaintiff and 

Travelers. (Robertson Decl. ¶¶ 6-8, Exs. A-C.) This sum 

represents the policy limits of ANG Transport’s insurance policy. 

(Robertson Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. A.) Plaintiff will recover $45,000, 

roughly 70 percent of the total estimated cost to repair the 

damage to the tractor. (Robertson Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. B.) Travelers 

will receive $55,000 in subrogation, slightly over half of its 

claim. (Robertson Decl. ¶¶ 4, 8, Ex. C.) Accordingly, this 

falls within the reasonable range articulated in Tech-Bilt. 

The fourth factor stresses that the settling parties 

should pay less in settlement than they would at trial. TechBilt, 38 Cal. 3d at 499. If plaintiff and Travelers were to 

recover the total amount claimed, ANG Transport would be liable 

Case 2:18-cv-02919-WBS-KJN Document 55 Filed 01/24/20 Page 4 of 6
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

for far more than $100,000. (See Robertson Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) ANG 

Transport submits that it is waiving its right to trial and 

suggests that settlement would conserve the court’s and the 

parties’ resources. These considerations weigh in favor of 

settlement. See City of West Sacramento v. R & L Bus. Mgmt., No. 

2:18-cv-900 WBS EFB, 2019 WL 2249629, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 24, 

2019) (citing Coppola v. Smith, No. 1:11-CV-1257 AWI BAM, 2017 WL 

4574091, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2017)). Accordingly, this 

factor favors a finding of good faith. 

The fifth factor accounts for ANG Transport’s financial 

conditions and insurance policy limits. Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal. 3d at 

499. As discussed, the $100,000 settlement will exhaust ANG 

Transport’s insurance policy limit. (Robertson Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 

A.) Accordingly, this favor favors approval of the settlements 

because ANG could not offer any greater settlement through its 

insurance. 

Finally, the sixth factor considers the existence of 

collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the 

interests of non-settling defendants. Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal. 3d at 

499. ANG Transport’s counsel certified that the negotiations for 

both settlements were conducted at arm’s length through the 

Voluntary Dispute Resolution Process and the settlement was 

reached fairly and properly. (Robertson Decl. ¶ 9.) There is no 

evidence to suggest otherwise, and the settling parties agree 

their settlements are reasonable compromises. (Id.) 

Additionally, the other defendants in this matter have already 

settled their claims with plaintiff or had claims against them 

dismissed, and thus, their interests will be unimpaired by the 

Case 2:18-cv-02919-WBS-KJN Document 55 Filed 01/24/20 Page 5 of 6
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

6

present settlement. (See Docket Nos. 40-41.) Accordingly, this 

factor, too, favors the court’s finding of good faith. 

Overall, the Tech-Bilt factors favor a finding of good 

faith. Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY FINDS that:

1. The settlement between plaintiff and ANG Transport was 

in good faith under Cal. Civ. P. § 877.6 and Tech Bilt, 

Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates, 38 Cal. 3d 488 

(1985); 

2. The settlement between subrogated plaintiff Travelers 

and ANG Transport was also in good faith under Cal. 

Civ. P. § 877.6 and Tech Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & 

Associates, 38 Cal. 3d 488 (1985); and

3. Any and all claims or future claims for contribution or 

indemnity, arising out of the facts alleged in the 

complaint, and as further identified and provided for 

in the settlement, regardless of when such claims were 

asserted or by whom, are barred.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that ANG Transport’s motion for 

determination of good faith settlement (Docket No. 49) be, and 

the same hereby is, GRANTED;

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint 

(Docket No. 1) be, and the same hereby is, dismissed with 

prejudice as to ANG Transport, Inc.; and the Clerk of Court is 

directed to close this case.

Dated: January 23, 2020

 

Case 2:18-cv-02919-WBS-KJN Document 55 Filed 01/24/20 Page 6 of 6