Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00158/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00158-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brandy Gillmore
Plaintiff
Gary Gonzales
Defendant
Edward Kemper
Plaintiff
LMD Kiefer Warehouse LLC
Defendant
Sierra Towing
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

EDWARD KEMPER and BRANDY

GILLMORE,

2:05-CV-0158-MCE-DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SIERRA TOWING, GARY GONZALES,

LMD KIEFER WAREHOUSE LLC,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Through the present action, Plaintiffs Edward Kemper and

Brandy Gillmore(“Plaintiffs”) are seeking redress for Defendants

Sierra Towing, Gary Gonzales and LMD Kiefer Warehouse LLC alleged

failure to provide them with access to the Auto Towing Yards

located at 9624 Kiefer Boulevard, Sacramento, California and 8590

Elder Creek Road, Sacramento, California. Plaintiffs allege

violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §

12101 et. seq. (“ADA”), California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal.

Civil Code §§ 51 et. seq. (“Unruh Act”), California’s Disabled

Persons Act, Cal. Civil Code §§ 54 et. seq., negligence and

declaratory relief. Defendant LMD Kiefer Warehouse LLC (“LMD”)

Case 2:05-cv-00158-MCE -DAD Document 31 Filed 04/20/06 Page 1 of 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

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

2

now brings this Motion for Determination of Good Faith

Settlement. For the reasons explained below, LMD’s Motion is

granted.1

BACKGROUND

LMD is the owner of the towing yards presently occupied by

Sierra Towing. Plaintiffs allege that the towing yards are

characterized by architectural barriers including inaccessible

parking; non-compliant signage; inaccessible restrooms; and other

inaccessible elements. Many of these barriers, Plaintiffs

contend, constitute safety hazards to persons who use

wheelchairs, canes and/or walkers for mobility. In an effort to

resolve the claims lodged against it, Defendant LMD has entered

into a settlement agreement with Plaintiffs for the sum of Twelve

Thousand Dollars ($12,000) and has agreed to survey and inspect

the property located at 9624 Kiefer Boulevard, Sacramento,

California to insure that the property is indeed in compliance

with the ADA and California disability laws and to correct any

condition which is not in compliance therewith.

LMD is now seeking a judicial determination that the

foregoing settlement is a good faith settlement within the

meaning of California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 and

the California Supreme Court decision in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v.

Woodward-Clyde & Assoc., 38 Cal. 3d 488 (Cal. 1985).

Case 2:05-cv-00158-MCE -DAD Document 31 Filed 04/20/06 Page 2 of 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

3

ANALYSIS

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 877.6 states, in

pertinent part:

(a) Any party to an action wherein it is alleged that

two or more parties are joint tortfeasors shall be

entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith of

a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other

claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors . . . .

[para. ] (c) 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. [para. ] (d) The party asserting

the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof

on that issue.

Here, Defendant LMD has moved for a determination that its

settlement with Plaintiffs is a good faith settlement pursuant to

the foregoing California statute. It has clarified that, in

conformance with its settlement offer, it will bear the expense

of rectifying any barriers present on the Kiefer Boulevard

property and compensate Plaintiffs Twelve Thousand Dollars

($12,000) for any damages they sustained to date. No other

Defendant to this action has come forward with evidence that the

foregoing settlement offer is not in good faith.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00158-MCE -DAD Document 31 Filed 04/20/06 Page 3 of 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

4

Given the non-opposition by Defendant Sierra Towing and

Defendant Gary Gonzales of Defendant LMD’s Motion, the Court

finds that Defendant LMD’s settlement offer has been made in good

faith. Having reviewed the papers, and good cause appearing

therefore, Defendant LMD’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith

Settlement is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 20, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00158-MCE -DAD Document 31 Filed 04/20/06 Page 4 of 4