Johnson v. Serra Property LLC

Background

Serra Property LLC operates a property in Milpitas, California. Shasta Corporation operates a restaurant there and is Serra’s tenant. Scott Johnson, who is a quadriplegic, alleged that Defendants failed to provide accessible parking and failed to maintain the restaurant’s sales counter so that it was readily accessible to people with disabilities. Johnson said he visited the restaurant in May and June 2019 and encountered barriers at the counter each time.

Johnson filed claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought injunctive relief, damages, and attorney’s fees. Serra and Johnson later agreed that Serra would modify the parking space and sales counter to comply with the applicable accessibility requirements and pay Johnson $9,500. In exchange, Johnson agreed to release his claims against Serra and dismiss Serra from the action with prejudice.

Legal issue

Serra asked for a good-faith settlement determination under California Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6. Such a determination can protect a settling joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from later claims by another joint tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable contribution or partial or comparative indemnity based on comparative fault.

The court had asked for additional authority because the case was based on federal-question jurisdiction arising from the ADA claim, rather than diversity jurisdiction. The court concluded that it had authority to apply the substantive provisions of § 877.6 and that a landlord such as Serra could seek a good-faith determination in this type of ADA and state-law case. The court noted that landlords and tenants may each have independent obligations under the ADA and may be jointly liable for violations at a tenant’s establishment.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the factors used to evaluate a good-faith settlement, including the approximate total recovery and settling party’s share of liability, the settlement amount, the settling party’s financial condition and insurance limits, and any evidence of collusion, fraud, or other improper conduct.

The court found that Serra accepted responsibility for the parking space and agreed to modify it to comply with the applicable statutes. Although Serra maintained that Shasta was responsible for the restaurant counter, Serra stated that it had fixed the counter because Shasta had not responded. The court found that Serra’s $9,500 payment was within the reasonable range of its potential liability. It also found no allocation issue, no relevant financial-condition or insurance issue, and no evidence or accusation of collusion, fraud, or other improper conduct.

Ruling

The court found that the proposed settlement was made in good faith under California Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6 and GRANTED Serra’s motion for good-faith settlement determination. The order did not state any additional disposition of Johnson’s claims against the other defendant.