Hernandez v. Contra Costa County

Background

Ricardo Hernandez brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Contra Costa County, Deputy Brandon Battles, Deputy William Root, and City of Richmond Police Officer Brandon Hodges. Hernandez alleged that, during a stolen-vehicle stop in May 2018, Battles and Hodges used excessive force to arrest him, Root failed to intervene, and the County implicitly condoned the incident. He also alleged that Battles fabricated evidence and maliciously prosecuted him. Officer Hodges was the sole remaining non-settling defendant identified in the order.

Hernandez and the County Defendants participated in a settlement conference on October 5, 2020, and reached a settlement. Under the agreement, Hernandez agreed to dismiss with prejudice the action against the County Defendants and release all actual and potential claims against them arising from or relating to his arrest, detention, and prosecution. The settlement amount was $262,500, to be paid within 45 days after approval by the County Board of Supervisors.

Motion and legal standard

The County Defendants moved under California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 for a determination that the settlement was made in good faith. Under that statute, a good-faith determination in an action involving joint tortfeasors bars other joint tortfeasors or co-obligors from seeking equitable comparative contribution or partial or comparative indemnity from the settling parties based on comparative negligence or fault.

A settlement is generally made in good faith when it falls within the reasonable range of the settling party’s proportional share of liability. Courts may consider factors such as the plaintiff’s expected total recovery, the settlement amount, the settling party’s estimated liability, the allocation of settlement proceeds, financial condition and insurance limits, and evidence of collusion or fraud. When no party objects, however, a court may make the determination without weighing those factors.

Ruling

Judge Alex Tse reviewed the unopposed motion, a supporting declaration, and the executed settlement agreement. Because no party contested the proposed settlement, the court found it unnecessary to weigh the listed settlement factors. The court therefore granted the County Defendants’ unopposed motion for a good-faith settlement determination.

The order did not decide whether Hernandez’s underlying allegations were true or whether any defendant was liable. It also did not state that the court itself entered the agreed dismissal; it described Hernandez’s agreement to dismiss the action against the County Defendants with prejudice.