Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 16, 2020

Williams v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Docket
4:19-cv-00576
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureTort
In one sentence

In Williams v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Judge Rogers approved a good-faith settlement and dismissed Amtrak and Union Pacific with prejudice.

Who this affects

Monique Williams, National Railroad Passenger Corporation doing business as Amtrak, Union Pacific Railroad Company, and other joint tortfeasors or co-obligors whose contribution or indemnity claims against Amtrak or Union Pacific were barred.

What happened

In Williams v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Monique Williams and National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak, and Union Pacific Railroad Company agreed to settle. The order does not state the settlement’s terms.

The court found the settlement was made in good faith under California law. It barred and dismissed with prejudice certain contribution and indemnity claims against Amtrak and Union Pacific, and dismissed those two defendants from the action with prejudice.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered the stipulated settlement as the court’s order. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims’ merits.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Williams v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation · No. 4:19-cv-00576
Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Date
Dec. 16, 2020

Background

Monique Williams and defendants National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak, and Union Pacific Railroad Company reached a settlement. The settlement terms are not included in the opinion. The parties asked the court to determine that the settlement was made in good faith under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6.

Court’s ruling

The court approved and sanctioned the parties’ stipulation, making it an order of the court. It deemed the settlement a good-faith settlement under California law.

The court ruled that further claims by other joint tortfeasors or co-obligors against Amtrak and Union Pacific for equitable comparative contribution, partial or comparative indemnity, or indemnity based on comparative negligence or comparative fault were barred and dismissed with prejudice under California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6(c).

The court also dismissed Amtrak and Union Pacific from the action with prejudice. The opinion does not address the merits of the underlying claims or state the settlement amount or other settlement terms.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.