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

ABDUL NEVAREZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FORTY NINERS FOOTBALL 

COMPANY, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-07013-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT 

DETERMINATION

Re: Dkt. No. 454

Pending before the Court is the application for good faith settlement determination filed by 

Third-Party Defendant, Turner/Devcon, a Joint Venture (“TDJV”). Dkt. No. 454 (“Mot.”). TDJV

seeks approval of a settlement agreement under which it agrees to pay $6,000,000 and provide 

additional construction work on Levi’s Stadium in exchange for a bar on any additional claims for 

equitable indemnity or contribution. Id. at 2. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the 

motion for good faith settlement determination. 

I. BACKGROUND

The current parties to this indemnification action are the Forty Niners Football Company, 

LLC and related entities, who own and operate Levi’s Stadium, and TDJV, the contractor who 

built Levi’s Stadium. The underlying case was a putative class action lawsuit filed by Plaintiffs 

Abdul Nevarez, Priscilla Nevarez, and Sebastian Defrancesco (collectively “Plaintiffs”) against 

the Forty Niners Football Company, LLC, and six other defendants (collectively “Defendants”).1 

1 Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Forty Niners Football Company, LLC, a Delaware 

Limited Liability Company; Forty Niners SC Stadium Company, LLC, a Delaware Limited 

Liability Company; National Football League; City of Santa Clara; Santa Clara Stadium 

Authority; Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc.; and Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, 

LLC. See Dkt. No. 78. 

Case 4:16-cv-07013-HSG Document 474 Filed 02/10/22 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

Dkt. No. 78 ¶ 1. Plaintiffs alleged that the configuration of Levi’s Stadium and its related 

facilities, and their ticketing policies, deny full and equal access to individuals with mobility 

disabilities and to their companions, in violation of Titles II and III of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990, and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Id. ¶ 3. 

Five Defendants (“Third-Party Plaintiffs”) subsequently filed a third-party complaint

against TDJV, the general contractor for Levi’s Stadium. Dkt. Nos. 107 ¶ 12, 454 at 7. That 

complaint alleged equitable and express contract indemnity and requested: 1) a determination of 

TDJV’s negligence or fault, 2) monetary relief for the cost of the suit, 3) attorneys’ fees, and 4) 

any other relief deemed proper by the court. Mot. at 6. After settling the underlying case with 

Plaintiffs, the parties then negotiated a settlement of the Third Party Complaint. Id. Under that 

agreement, TDJV will pay Third-Party Plaintiffs $6,000,000 and conduct additional construction 

work in Levi’s Stadium. Id. The Settlement Agreement is conditioned on this Court’s finding that 

it was in made in “good faith” pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 877.6. Id. § 

2.1. 

II. DISCUSSION

TDJV requests an order determining that the Settlement Agreement was made in good 

faith pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 877.6. Mot. at 17. 

Section 877.6 authorizes a court to determine whether a settlement between the plaintiff 

and one or more defendants was made in good faith in an action in which it is alleged that “two or 

more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt[.]” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 

877.6. “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 setting tortfeasor or coobligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on 

comparative negligence or comparative fault.” Id. § 877.6(c). 

The California Supreme Court has explained that a settlement is made in “good faith” if it 

is “within the reasonable range of the settling tortfeasor’s proportional share of comparative 

liability for the plaintiff’s injuries,” taking into account the facts and circumstances of the 

particular case. See Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde Associates, 38 Cal. 3d 488, 499 (1985). 

Case 4:16-cv-07013-HSG Document 474 Filed 02/10/22 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

When determining whether a settlement has been entered into in good faith, a court considers the 

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

proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) a recognition that a settlor should pay 

less in settlement than if found liable after a trial; (4) the allocation of the settlement proceeds 

among plaintiffs; (5) the settlor’s financial condition and insurance policy limits, if any; and (6) 

evidence of any collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct between the settlor and the plaintiffs aimed at 

making the non-settling parties pay more than their fair share. Id.

Having considered the relevant Tech-Bilt factors, the Court finds that the proposed 

Settlement was entered into in good faith pursuant to Section 877.6 for the following reasons. 

First, although the burden of proof lies with the party who asserts lack of good faith, see Cal. Civ. 

Proc. Code § 877.6(d), here no party disputes that the agreement between TDJV and Third-Party 

Plaintiffs was made in good faith.

2 Moreover, the amount TDJV has agreed to compensate ThirdParty Plaintiffs is “within the reasonable range of the settling tortfeasor’s proportional share of 

comparative liability for the plaintiff’s injuries.” Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal. 3d at 499. TDJV agreed to 

pay Third-Party Plaintiffs six million dollars ($6,000,000), and also agreed to perform and/or 

manage one million dollars ($1,000,000) of work remediating the alleged construction-related 

barriers at Levi’s Stadium. See SA §§ 1.1-1.2. At minimum, the Court finds that this amount is 

not so far “out of the ballpark” as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of Section 877.6. 

Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal. 3d at 499-500. And finally, the Court is aware of no evidence of collusion, 

fraud, or tortious conduct between the parties in this case. 

//

2 Non-party HNTB California Architects, Inc. f/k/a Howard, Needles, Tammen & 

Bergenhoff California Architects, P.C. (“HNTB”) filed a “Limited Opposition” in response to 

TDJV’s motion. Dkt. No. 455. There, HNTB says that it does not object to TDJV’s motion “[s]o 

long as the Court’s approval of the proposed settlement is conditioned on TDJV’s compliance” 

with TDJV’s prior representation that it will “forbear from bringing suit or seeking recovery from 

HNTB, the project architect.” Id. (citing Mot. at 6). The Court finds HNTB’s addendum 

unnecessary. As TDJV persuasively argues, the Limited Opposition (a) does not challenge the

good faith nature of the Settlement Agreement; and (b) seeks unnecessary confirmation of an 

undisputed matter that is already squarely addressed by the Settlement Agreement itself. See Dkt. 

No. 457; see also SA § 1.3 (“TDJV and its SUBCONTRACTORS covenant not to sue HNTB or 

any subconsultant of HNTB on any claim that it has or could have asserted in the ACTION or 

otherwise in connection with the PROJECT.”). 

Case 4:16-cv-07013-HSG Document 474 Filed 02/10/22 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

The Court accordingly GRANTS the motion for good faith settlement determination. This 

Order TERMINATES Docket Nos. 456 and 466. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/10/2022

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:16-cv-07013-HSG Document 474 Filed 02/10/22 Page 4 of 4