Doe v. County of San Diego et al

1
23-cv-0251-AGS-KSC
1
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
John DOE,
Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 23-cv-0251-AGS-KSC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
ASHLEY LEBLANC’S UNOPPOSED
MOTION TO CONFIRM GOOD-
FAITH SETTLEMENT (ECF 89)
Defendant Ashley Leblanc seeks an order deeming that her settlement with plaintiff
John Doe was reached in good faith.
When evaluating a settlement’s “good faith,” courts usually must consider the
“factors” set forth in Tech-Bilt v. Woodward-Clyde & Assocs., 38 Cal. 3d 488, 167 (1985).
But if, as here, “none of the nonsettling parties files a motion” “to contest the good faith of
the settlement” “within 25 days of mailing of the notice, application, and proposed order,
or within 20 days of personal service, the court may approve the settlement.” Cal. Civ.
Proc. Code § 877.6(a)(2). “That is to say, when no one objects, the barebones motion which
sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief
background of the case is sufficient” for the good-faith showing. City of Grand Terrace v.
Superior Court, 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1261 (1987); see also Xtermite, Inc. v. Chargualaf,
No. 24-cv-2317-LL-DDL, 2025 WL 3531558, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2025) (“[B]ecause
no party has objected to the instant motion for determination of good faith settlement, the
Court need not apply the Tech-Bilt factors.”).
Leblanc’s good-faith-settlement request more than meets this low standard. She filed
a declaration giving a brief case background, and her motion sets forth the settlement’s
good-faith grounds—that she paid plaintiff a “fair and reasonable amount” “within the
available insurance policy limit” to avoid “the escalating costs associated with defending
this lawsuit.” (ECF 89, at 6, 8–9.) No one objected to that assertion nor to her request for
an “order barring any pending or future claims from any joint tortfeasor against [Ashley]
Case 3:23-cv-00251-AGS-GC Doc 98 Filed 02/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Pg 1/2

2
23-cv-0251-AGS-KSC
1
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
Leblanc based upon implied equitable indemnity, contribution or comparative fault.”
(See id. at 10.)
So, the Court GRANTS the unopposed motion. The settlement was made in good
faith. Any pending or future claims from any joint tortfeasor against this defendant based
upon implied equitable indemnity, contribution or comparative fault are barred.
Dated: February 24, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:23-cv-00251-AGS-GC Doc 98 Filed 02/24/26 PageID.<pageID> Pg 2/2