Sherry v. Sima Barnyard, LLC

Background

Jackson Sherry sued Sima Barnyard, LLC and Barnyard Carmel, LLC, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California law based on accessibility barriers at Barnyard Shopping Village. Sherry is a person with a disability who uses a manual wheelchair. Sima owned and operated the shopping center before selling it to Barnyard Carmel in March 2023; Barnyard Carmel became the current owner and operator.

Sherry and Sima reached an agreement in August 2023. Under the agreement, Sima would pay Sherry $22,500 in exchange for a full release of claims related to the alleged accessibility barriers. Sima moved under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6 for a determination that the settlement was made in good faith. Sherry and Barnyard Carmel filed statements of non-opposition.

Legal standard

Under California law, a settling party may ask the court to determine that a settlement was made in good faith. A good-faith settlement generally protects the settling party from later claims by other joint tortfeasors or co-obligors for equitable comparative contribution or partial or comparative indemnity based on comparative negligence or comparative fault. The settlement may also reduce claims against nonsettling parties.

Courts may consider factors identified in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates, including an approximate estimate of the plaintiff’s total recovery, the settling party’s proportionate liability, the settlement amount, the allocation of proceeds, the settling party’s financial condition and insurance limits, and possible collusion, fraud, or conduct intended to harm nonsettling parties. An opposing party bears the burden of showing that the settlement is so far outside the reasonable range suggested by those factors that it is inconsistent with the statute’s equitable purposes.

Court’s analysis

Because Barnyard Carmel did not oppose the motion, the court stated that it did not need to evaluate the Tech-Bilt factors. The court nevertheless concluded that the factors supported approval. It found no evidence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct, and noted that there was only one plaintiff and no evidence that Sima’s financial condition or insurance limits were particularly relevant.

The court focused on the $22,500 payment and Sima’s proportionate potential liability. Because Sima no longer owned the shopping center, its potential liability was limited to damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs; the requested injunctive relief concerning remediation of access barriers did not apply to Sima. Based on the operative complaint, the court stated that Sima’s potential exposure to statutory damages under the Unruh Act appeared limited to $4,000 for one October 2021 visit, because the other specifically alleged visit occurred after Sima sold the property.

The court also noted that the case was at an early stage, with no motion practice and a required joint site inspection still pending. It found no basis to conclude that the $22,500 settlement was outside the reasonable range of Sima’s potential liability and determined that the amount was fair and reasonable under the circumstances.

Disposition

The court granted Sima’s motion for determination of good-faith settlement. The order did not decide whether the alleged accessibility violations occurred or whether any defendant was liable on the underlying claims.