Yanushkevich v. Fry's Electronics, Inc., 5:15-cv-04830

Background

Plaintiff Dmitry Yanushkevich sued under the ADA and California law alleging lack of access at Fry’s Electronics premises located at 340 Portage Ave., Palo Alto; the property is owned by SI 11, LLC and SI 43, LLC (Landlords) and leased to Fry’s (Tenant).
Landlords agreed to settle with Plaintiff for $7,000 plus injunctive relief (consent decree obligating corrective work); Tenant has not settled.
Landlords filed an unopposed application asking the Court to declare the settlement was made in good faith under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6; Tenant filed a non-opposition.
The magistrate judge evaluated whether § 877.6 applies in this federal ADA action and whether the Tech-Bilt factors support a good-faith finding.
The court concluded landlords and tenant can be treated as joint tortfeasors for § 877.6 purposes because both may be independently liable under the ADA, and recommended granting the unopposed good-faith settlement determination.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 877.6 good‑faith settlement procedure is available in this federal ADA case	Section 877.6 procedures (substantive provisions) apply in federal actions when joint tortfeasor liability is alleged	Landlords argued § 877.6 applies because landlord and tenant can be joint tortfeasors under the ADA	Court: § 877.6 may be applied in this federal ADA action; landlords and tenant are appropriately treated as joint tortfeasors
Whether landlord and tenant qualify as “joint tortfeasors” under § 877.6 in an ADA claim	Plaintiff proceeded on ADA claims against both landlord and tenant as possible jointly liable parties	Landlords argued they share liability with tenant because both have independent ADA obligations; lease allocation doesn’t affect third‑party rights	Court: landlord and tenant can be joint tortfeasors for § 877.6 because both have independent ADA duties and joint liability is recognized
Whether the settlement meets Tech‑Bilt factors for good faith	Settlement (monetary + corrective injunctive relief) reflects available information and avoids litigation cost/uncertainty	Landlords argued $7,000 plus injunctive relief is reasonable given their limited liability (parking lot control), discovery, and lack of collusion	Court: On balance, the Tech‑Bilt factors are satisfied; settlement is not grossly disproportionate and there is no evidence of collusion
Effect of good‑faith determination on non‑settling tenant	Plaintiff’s release of landlords could impair Tenant’s rights to seek contribution/indemnity	Landlords asserted finding would bar Tenant’s equitable contribution claims under § 877.6(c); Tenant did not oppose	Court: Recommended finding good faith, which (if adopted) would bar further contribution claims by Tenant against the settling landlords under § 877.6(c)

Key Cases Cited

Tech‑Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward‑Clyde & Assocs., 38 Cal.3d 488 (Cal. 1985) (sets factors for evaluating good‑faith settlements under § 877.6)
Botosan v. Paul McNally Realty, 216 F.3d 827 (9th Cir. 2000) (landlords and tenants both fall within ADA obligations for public accommodations)
Rush v. Sport Chalet, Inc., 779 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2015) (landlord and tenant may be jointly liable under the ADA despite lease allocation)
Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Butler, 904 F.2d 505 (9th Cir. 1990) (federal courts may apply the substantive provisions of § 877.6)
Topa Ins. Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Cos., 39 Cal.App.4th 1331 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (broad construction of “joint tortfeasor” for § 877.6)
Kohn v. Superior Court, 142 Cal.App.3d 323 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (§ 877.6 not limited to personal injury actions; applies when multiple defendants’ fault is at issue)
Bob Parrett Constr., Inc. v. Superior Court, 140 Cal.App.4th 1180 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (applied § 877.6 principles to federal statutory claims that may impose joint and several liability)
Forman v. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co., 920 F. Supp. 1065 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (discusses availability of § 877.6 in federal cases)