Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 20GDCV00419, Date: 2023-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20GDCV00419    Hearing Date: March 17, 2023    Dept: E

20GDCV00419 Jackson, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche, etc., et al.

Tentative Ruling on Deloitte’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement (hearing: 3/17/23)

The Court will hear argument. The Court is unclear, after reading the moving papers, the supplemental declaration of Bradley D. Sharp of February 28, 2023, as well as the opposition and reply papers, what the amount of the settlement with Deloitte Touche for the plaintiffs in this action totals.  Additionally, to whom did the Federal Court settlement pertain?

The Court tentatively declines to rule that, upon any judgment in this case, any offset thereto for prior settlements will be determined by proportionate fault. Franklin v. Kaypro Corp. (9^th circ – 1989) 884 F.2^d 1222, 1230 – 1231.  See, e.g., Hellam v. Crane Co. (1^st dist., 2015) 239 Cal. App. 4^th 851, 860-865.  Of course, the fact finder will nevertheless be charged with allocating fault, if any, proportionally among tortfeasors. See, e.g., B.B. v. County of Los Angeles (2020) 10 Cal. 5^th 1.

The Court tentatively rules further that objecting party Opus has failed to meet its burden to show fraud, collusion, or a lack of good faith in connection with the subject settlement. Further, Opus has failed to present adequate grounds, whether for further discovery or otherwise, for a continuance of the hearing on this motion.

Finally, the Court tentatively rules that, while the grant of this motion for good faith determination would bar Opus’ claims for contribution and indemnity from Deloitte, Opus’ cross-complaint (FACC) against Deloitte for negligent misrepresentation remains pending. Deloitte’s argument that such claim may be dismissed in the context of this motion is not persuasive.