Laserfiche WebLink
9 <br /> I District Attorneys to settle on the terms set forth in the proposed Final Judgment should be <br /> 2 accorded substantial deference by the Court. <br /> 3 As a judgment of the Court, the settlement may be rejected if it is contrary to public <br /> 4 policy or incorporates an erroneous rule of law. (California State Auto. Assn. Inter-Ins. Bureau <br /> 5 v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Ca1.3d 658, 664; see Mary R. v. B & R Corp. (1983) 149 <br /> 6 Cal.App.3d 308, 316-317 (settlement between physician and patient purporting to bar state from <br /> 7 access to information relevant to physician's fitness to practice medicine contrary to public ' <br /> 8 policy); Valdez v. Taylor Auto Company (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 810, 819 (trial stipulation i <br /> 9 stating erroneous conclusion of law to follow from a given factual finding not binding on court <br /> 10 in entering judgment).) Such circumstances are rare,and,moreover,do not exist here. <br /> 11 The proposed resolution in this case also is not subject to standards of review that apply j <br /> 12 in tort cases or class actions. Because the resolution does not discharge any liability for <br /> 13 contribution, the requirement of a "good faith" determination pursuant to Code of Civil Y <br /> 14 Procedure section 877.6 does not apply.' Nor is this a class action in which individual persons <br /> 15 will lose their personal claims, which would necessitate a determination, on behalf of the absent <br /> 3 <br /> 16 class members,that the settlement is "fair,reasonable and adequate." To the contrary, an action <br /> 17 by the People under UCL and, by analogy an action under Chapters 6.5 and 6.95 of Division 20 <br /> 18 of the Health and Safety Code, is "fundamentally a law enforcement action designed to protect <br /> 19 the public and not to benefit private parties," and therefore is not subject to the procedural <br /> 20 requirements of class actions. (People v. Pacific Land Research Co. (1977)20 Cal.3d 10, 17.) <br /> 21 II. The Final Judgment Obtains a Beneficial Resolution of Disputed Issues and Avoids <br /> } <br /> 22 Prolonged Litigation <br /> 23 Because the litigation process "is fraught with complexities, uncertainties, delays, and <br /> 24 risks of many kinds[,]" public policy in California favors settlement. (Neary v. Regents of <br /> 25 University of California (1992) 3 Cal.4th 273, 280.) Litigating this case would be time- u <br /> 26 <br /> 3 <br /> 3 <br /> { <br /> 27 California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 applies only where a complaint alleges that the defendants <br /> are "joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt" and approval of the settlement discharges a settling <br /> �. 28 defendant from liability for contribution. No such allegation is made in the Complaint in this matter. i <br /> -8- <br /> MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES <br /> 3 <br /> i <br />