Badr v. City of San Ramon

Background

The city and law-enforcement defendants, referred to by the court as the “settling defendants,” moved for a determination that their settlement with plaintiff Ali Badr was made in good faith. The motion was opposed by defendants John Blomeke and Carmommy Rentals, whom the court collectively called “Carmommy.”

Reason for Further Briefing

The court identified an unresolved issue about allocation. The settling defendants argued that they did not need to show how the settlement amount was allocated because there was only one plaintiff. They appeared to suggest that allocation questions could be addressed after trial. Carmommy argued that the settlement should be allocated not only by plaintiff but also among the different claims. The settling defendants’ reply did not address whether they had to allocate settlement funds among the settled claims.

The court stated that it generally treats a party’s failure to respond to a clearly raised argument as a concession. It also said Carmommy’s position appeared to have merit. Citing California decisions, the court explained that a good-faith settlement determination may require an allocation of settlement proceeds among different causes of action, particularly when multiple defendants may be responsible for different kinds of damages. The settling parties bear the burden of explaining the factual basis for their allocations and valuations well enough to show that the allocation was reasonable.

Order and Next Steps

The court did not grant or deny the good-faith-settlement motion in this order. Instead, it requested additional briefing on allocation. The settling defendants were ordered to file no more than five pages by Wednesday, July 19, 2023. Carmommy could respond seven days afterward. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers vacated the hearing set for July 18, 2023, stating that the court would reset it if needed after the briefing was complete.