Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 30-2021-01236425, Date: 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling

Please Note: The hearing on this matter is scheduled for 8:30 A.M.

Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Defendant Al’s Engineering, Inc.’s motion for determination of good faith settlement is CONTINUED to 02/21/2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department N15.

The court ORDERS Defendant Al’s Engineering to serve, to the extent reasonably possible, the instant motion for determination of good faith settlement and notice of this ruling upon KJI, Inc.; Jack Herron; Domenic Valvano dba Superior Roofing Systems; Guttermasters, Inc.; Apptek Inc. erroneously sued as Apptek Stucco; and any other known potential joint tortfeasors pursuant to Civil Procedure Code section 1005(b).

The court ORDERS Defendant Al’s Engineering to file a proof of service for the above required service and complies with Civil Procedure Code section 1013b(b).

Defendant Al’s Engineering, Inc. (Defendant Al’s Engineering) moves for an order 1) determining that Defendant Al’s Engineering’s settlement with Plaintiff 5 Coral Way LLC was made in good faith and 2) dismissing the cross-complaint filed against Defendant Al’s Engineering in the related case (5 Coral Cove Way LLC v. Irie Kasinger, et al., Case No. 30-2021-01229781).

Notice Requirements

Any party to an action that involves two or more alleged joint tortfeasors may settle the claim(s) against that party and then seek a determination by the court that the settlement was made good faith. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(1).) A good faith determination discharges any indemnity claims made against the settling party by other joint tortfeasors, whether named or unnamed, as long as the other joint tortfeasors were given notice and an opportunity to be heard. (Gackstetter v. Frawley (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1273.)

Given that the rights of other joint tortfeasors may be affected, they must be given notice of the motion for determination of good faith settlement and an opportunity to be heard. In fact, this is so important that the Court of Appeal has held that due process requires notice to joint tortfeasors whose rights may be affected by the good faith determination, even if they are not presently parties to the action. (See Gackstetter v. Frawley, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1273; Singer Co. v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 8785, 895.)

In this case, the proof of service for the motion for determination of good faith settlement reveals that the motion was served on Plaintiff and as well as defendants in the related case – Irie Kasinger dba Irie’s Roof and Waterproofing Co. (Kasinger) and Old Republic Surety Company. (fn.1)

However, in the related case, Kasinger filed a cross-complaint for indemnity and other causes of action against several other cross-defendants – KJI, Inc.; Jack Herron; Domenic Valvano dba Superior Roofing Systems; Guttermasters, Inc.; and Apptek Inc. erroneously sued as Apptek Stucco. The instant motion for determination of good faith settlement was not served on any of these parties, although all of them may be joint tortfeasors. These parties should be given notice to the extent possible, particularly in light of the fact that no party has responded to this motion.

(fn.1) The court notes that the proof of service attached to the motion for determination of good faith is not code compliant as it does not contain the electronic service address of the person making the electronic service. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1013b, subd. (b) [party serving by electronic service must include in proof of service “[t]he electronic service address . . . of the person making the electronic service”].) This does not appear to have caused any actual prejudice. However, counsel for Defendant Al’s Engineering should change the form of the proofs of service in the future to ensure that they are code compliant.

Defendant Al’s Engineering shall give notice of this ruling.