COMPLIANCE INFO - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 District Attorneys to settle on the terms set forth in the proposed Final Judgment should b, accorded substantial deference by the Court. As a judgment of the Court, the settlement may be rejected if it is contrary to publi4 policy or incorporates an erroneous rule of law. (California State Auto. Assn. Inter -Ins. Bureat v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Ca1.3d 658, 664; see Mary R. v. B & R Corp. (1983) 14S Cal.App.3d 308, 316-317 (settlement between physician and patient purporting to bar state from access to information relevant to physician's fitness to practice medicine contrary to public policy); Valdez v. Taylor Auto Company (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 810, 819 (trial stipulation stating erroneous conclusion of law to follow from a given factual finding not binding on court in entering judgment).) Such circumstances are rare, and, moreover, do not exist here. The proposed resolution in this case also is not subject to standards of review that apply in tort cases or class actions. Because the resolution does not discharge any liability for contribution, the requirement of a "good faith" determination pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 does not apply. 1 Nor is this a class action in which individual persons will lose their personal claims, which would necessitate a determination, on behalf of the absent class members, that the settlement is "fair, reasonable and adequate." To the contrary, an action by the People under UCL and, by analogy an action under Chapters 6.5 and 6.95 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, is "fundamentally a law enforcement action designed to protect the public and not to benefit private parties," and therefore is not subject to the procedural requirements of class actions. (People v. Pacific Land Research Co. (1977) 20 Cal.3d 10, 17.) II. The Final Judgment Obtains a Beneficial Resolution of Disputed Issues and Avoids Prolonged Litigation Because the litigation process "is fraught with complexities, uncertainties, delays, and risks of many kinds[,]" public policy in California favors settlement. (Neary v. Regentsof University of California (1992) 3 Cal.4th 273, 280.) Litigating this case would be time - I California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 applies only where a complaint alleges that the defendants are "joint tortfeasors or co -obligors on a contract debt" and approval of the settlement discharges a settling defendant from liability for contribution. No such allegation is made in the Complaint in this matter. -8- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES