Defendant Dylan Hammond’s Motion to Contest Defendants’ Sam Bagno and ETA Omega Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity, Inc.’s Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement
5. 22CV02543 Christensen, Kevin et al. v. Hammond, Dylan
EVENT: Defendant Dylan Hammond’s Motion to Contest Defendants’ Sam Bagno and ETA Omega Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity, Inc.’s Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement
Defendant Dylan Hammond’s Motion to Contest Defendants’ Sam Bagno and ETA Omega Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity, Inc.’s Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is DENIED. Defendants’ Sam Bagno and ETA Omega Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity, Inc.’s Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.
Regarding Defendant Hammond’s contention that insufficient discovery has taken place, the circumstances are similar to Defendant Hurt’s application for good faith settlement. The Hurt settlement occurred on September 3, 2025 after the August 26, 2025 mediation. According to Defendants Bagno and Omega, the instant settlement also occurred on September 3, 2025. All parties, including these Defendants participated in the mediation. In ruling on the Hurt motion the Court noted it was reasonable to infer that all counsel performed necessary preparation and investigation in order to engage in intelligent negotiations at mediation. That equally applies here.
Regarding Defendant Hammond’s lack of allocation argument, this is a “typical” case as described in Alcal Roofing and Insulation v. Superior Court (1992) 8 Cal. App. 4th 1121, 1124 – each tortfeasor here is potentially liable for the same injury. As a result, allocation is not required.
With respect to the Tech-Bilt factors, the Court finds the $550,000 settlement is within “the ballpark.” (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.App. 3d 488, 499-500) The reply noted that the Hurt motion provided an estimated value of the case at $2.1 million. Defendant Hammond has not indicated he disagrees with that estimate. The Court finds that estimate to be reasonable. Combining the Hurt settlement with the instant settlement, we have a total of $850k. That amount is 40% of $2.1 million, and it appears there are at least (3) remaining defendants.
Additionally, a settlement is expected to be discounted “based on the savings in trial time, defense costs, attorneys' fees and the avoidance of the risk inherent in every trial of a verdict or judgment larger than expected.” (Horton v. Superior Court (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 727, 735
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
5|Page
6. 23CV01439 Linoz, Roberta Jean et al v. Mains’l California, LLC et al.
EVENT: Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action and PAGA Settlement. A Final Approval Hearing is scheduled for July 22, 2026 at 9:00am. The Court will sign the proposed order with this modification.
7. 24CV00371 995 Nord Retail, LLC v. Ballesteros, Tina
EVENT: Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff has met its initial burden by submitting evidence that no triable issue of fact exists on each element of the breach of contract claim and the motion is unopposed. Plaintiff shall prepare and submit a form of order within 2 weeks.
8. 24CV00397 Lau, Crystal v. Feathers, Robin et al.
EVENT: Defendants’ Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint
Second Cause of Action - Harassment
Preliminarily, Defendants argue for the first time in the reply brief that ADHD is not a disability under FEHA. Because this legal issue was not raised in the moving papers, it will not be addressed here. (See American Indian Model Schools v. Oakland Unified School Dist. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 228, 275-276 [“We will not ordinarily consider issues raised for the first time in a reply brief.”]
The SAC sufficiently alleges Plaintiff was harassed “based on” her disability
Plaintiff contends that the “based on” language does not necessarily require the harasser be aware of Plaintiff’s disability at the time the harassing conduct occurred. However, as it specifically pertains to disability, existing authority suggests Plaintiff must plead Defendants’ knowledge of the disability prior to the harassing conduct, see Pensinger v. Bowsmith, Inc., 6|Page