I.R. a minor v. Petaluma City Schools
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:21-cv-00726
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In I.R. a minor v. Petaluma City Schools, Chief Judge Seeborg approved a $20,000 settlement as made in good faith.
I.R. and the settling defendants, Michele Yeomans, Robert Yeomans, and P.Y., are directly affected. Other joint tortfeasors or co-obligors are barred from seeking the specified contribution or comparative-fault indemnity claims against the settling defendants.
What happened
I.R. a minor v. Petaluma City Schools involved claims arising from an alleged incident at Casa Grande High School on or about February 4, 2019. I.R., through her guardian ad litem, sued P.Y., Michele Yeomans, Robert Yeomans, and others.
Michele and Robert Yeomans asked the court to find that their $20,000 settlement with I.R. was made in good faith under California law. I.R. continued litigating against other defendants, and no defendant opposed the request.
Chief Judge Seeborg granted the application and found the settlement was made in good faith. The ruling bars other joint tortfeasors or co-obligors from seeking certain contribution or comparative-fault indemnity from the settling defendants.
The detailed version
- I.R. a minor v. Petaluma City Schools · No. 3:21-cv-00726
- Richard Seeborg
- Jan. 21, 2022
Background
I.R., a minor represented by her guardian ad litem, Sherri Rodriguez, brought the action against P.Y., a minor; Michele Yeomans; Robert Yeomans; and other defendants. The action arose from an alleged incident at Casa Grande High School in Petaluma, California, on or about February 4, 2019.
Michele and Robert Yeomans, individually and as guardian ad litem for P.Y., reached a $20,000 settlement with I.R. They filed an application asking the court to determine that the settlement was made in good faith under California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6. I.R. continued litigating against other defendants. The opinion states that no other defendant opposed the application.
Legal standard
Section 877.6 permits a court to determine whether a settlement between a plaintiff and one or more alleged joint tortfeasors was made in good faith. The court considered the factors identified in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates, including the relationship between the settlement amount, the plaintiff’s potential total recovery, and the settling parties’ likely share of responsibility, as well as whether there was collusion, fraud, or conduct intended to harm nonsettling parties.
Ruling
Judge Richard Seeborg found that the settlement was made in good faith. The court stated that the $20,000 settlement appeared to be a reasonable estimate of the settling parties’ proportionate liability for the plaintiff’s potential total recovery and found no reason to doubt that the other relevant factors were satisfied.
The court granted the application for a determination of good-faith settlement and found the settlement between I.R. and the moving defendants to be in good faith under sections 877 and 877.6. The court further ordered that this determination bars other joint tortfeasors or co-obligors from making claims against the settling defendants for equitable comparative contribution or partial or comparative indemnity based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.