Williams v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:19-cv-00576
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Williams v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Judge Rogers approved a good-faith settlement, barring and dismissing certain contribution and indemnity claims with prejudice.
Monique Williams, the City of Richmond, RHA Housing Corporation, and other joint tortfeasors or co-obligors with potential contribution or indemnity claims related to the lawsuit.
What happened
In Williams v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Monique Williams and the City of Richmond and RHA Housing Corporation agreed to a total settlement of $40,000. The agreement was made in exchange for a dismissal with prejudice and was presented to the court as reasonable and made in good faith.
The court approved the settlement as a good-faith settlement under California law. It barred and dismissed with prejudice further claims by other joint tortfeasors or co-obligors against the City of Richmond and RHA Housing Corporation for comparative contribution or partial or comparative indemnity based on comparative negligence or fault.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered the stipulation as the court’s order. The opinion does not state that the entire lawsuit was dismissed, beyond the specified claims and the dismissal described in the parties’ settlement agreement.
The detailed version
- Williams v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation · No. 4:19-cv-00576
- Yvonne Rogers
- Dec. 16, 2020
Background
Monique Williams sued National Railroad Passenger Corporation doing business as Amtrak, Union Pacific Railroad Company, the City of Richmond, the County of Contra Costa, and other defendants identified as Does 1–50. The opinion is a stipulated order involving Williams, the City of Richmond, and RHA Housing Corporation.
The parties stipulated that the City of Richmond and RHA Housing Corporation had reached a settlement with Williams for $40,000. The stipulation states that the settlement was in return for a dismissal with prejudice and that the parties agreed it was reasonable and made in good faith under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6. Those provisions address the effect of settlements among joint tortfeasors, including contribution and indemnity claims.
Court’s ruling
The court sanctioned the stipulation and made it its order. It deemed the settlement a good-faith settlement under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6.
The court also ruled that any further claims by other joint tortfeasors or co-obligors against the City of Richmond and RHA Housing Corporation for equitable comparative contribution, partial comparative indemnity, or comparative indemnity based on comparative negligence or comparative fault were barred and dismissed with prejudice under section 877.6(c). “With prejudice” means those specified claims may not be brought again.
The text does not separately state that the entire lawsuit was dismissed, apart from the settlement agreement’s statement that the settlement was exchanged for a dismissal with prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.