Abdul Nevarez v. Forty Niners Football Company, LLC

Background

Turner/Devcon, a joint venture, asked the court to determine that its settlement with the third-party plaintiffs was made in good faith under California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6. The underlying case was a proposed class action brought by Abdul Nevarez, Priscilla Nevarez, and Sebastian Defrancesco against the Forty Niners Football Company, LLC, related entities, the National Football League, the City of Santa Clara, and other defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that Levi’s Stadium and related facilities, along with ticketing policies, denied full and equal access to people with mobility disabilities and their companions, violating Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Five defendants in the underlying case later filed a third-party complaint against Turner/Devcon, the stadium’s general contractor. They alleged equitable and express contractual indemnity and sought a determination of Turner/Devcon’s negligence or fault, litigation costs, attorney’s fees, and other relief. After the underlying case settled, the parties negotiated a settlement of the third-party complaint.

Settlement and legal standard

Under the settlement agreement, Turner/Devcon agreed to pay the third-party plaintiffs $6,000,000 and perform or manage $1,000,000 of work remediating the alleged construction-related barriers at Levi’s Stadium. The agreement was conditioned on the court finding that it was made in good faith under section 877.6.

That statute allows a court to determine whether a settlement between parties alleged to be joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt was made in good faith. A good-faith determination bars other joint tortfeasors or co-obligors from bringing further claims against the settling party for equitable contribution or partial or comparative indemnity based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.

The court considered the factors used to evaluate good faith, including the estimated total recovery, the settling party’s proportional liability, the settlement amount, the fact that settlements are generally lower than a trial judgment, the allocation of settlement proceeds, the settling party’s financial condition and insurance limits, and possible collusion, fraud, or other improper conduct.

Court’s analysis

The court found that no party disputed the settlement’s good-faith nature. It also found that the payment and additional work were within a reasonable range of Turner/Devcon’s proportional share of comparative liability. The court concluded that the settlement was not so far outside that range as to conflict with section 877.6’s purposes. Finally, the court stated that it was aware of no evidence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct between the parties.

HNTB California Architects, Inc., a nonparty, filed a limited opposition. HNTB did not object to the motion itself but sought a condition requiring Turner/Devcon to comply with a prior representation that it would not sue or seek recovery from HNTB. The court rejected that request as unnecessary because it did not challenge the settlement’s good-faith nature and the settlement agreement already addressed the matter.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the motion for good faith settlement determination. The order also TERMINATED Docket Nos. 456 and 466.