How has the court treated the issue of joint and several liability for full restitution in a civil case?

The record here clearly demonstrates that the parties discussed the issue of victim restitution and came to an agreement that the court should order joint and several liability for full restitution. As part of his plea agreement, defendant agreed to joint and several liability with Doreen M. for victim restitution. Under joint and several liability, each party whose wrongdoing was a cause of an injury is liable for all of the plaintiff's damages. (Diaz v. Carcamo (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1148, 1156.) In his reply brief, defendant claims that he only agreed to be jointly and severally liable for the victim's losses that he caused. Thus, since he allegedly did not cause the victim's loss related to the bail bonds, the court erred in ordering him to be jointly and severally liable for that portion of the restitution award. However, not only did the plea agreement explicitly state that defendant would be jointly and severally liable for full restitution, the court specifically stated, at the plea hearing, that both defendant and Doreen M. would be responsible for

Page 9