Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 22PSCV01214, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Defendants M.B. Sturgis, Inc. and Weber-Stephen Products, LLC’s Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Defendants M.B. Sturgis, Inc. and Weber-Stephen Products, LLC’s Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.

On October 10, 2022, Plaintiffs Michael Pierson[1], individually and as the successor-in-interest to the Estate of Katie Pierson, and Courtney Pierson filed a complaint against Defendants M.B. Sturgis, Inc. (M.B. Sturgis), Enerco Group, Inc. (Enerco), Coloma Food Inc. (Coloma Food), Worthington Industries, Inc. (Worthington), Grand Gas Equipment Inc. (Grand Gas), and Does 1-50, alleging the following causes of action: (1) strict product liability, (2) negligence-product liability, (3) strict production liability, (4) negligence-product liability, (5) breach of express and implied warranties, (6) strict product liability, (7) negligence-product liability, and (8) negligence.

On November 7, 2022, the Piersons filed an amendment to the Complaint replacing Coloma Food with Coloma Store Inc. (Coloma Store).

On December 6, 2022, Coloma Store filed a cross complaint against M.B. Sturgis, Enerco, Worthington, Grand Gas, and Roes 1-100, alleging equitable indemnity.

On July 5, 2023, Enerco filed a motion for change of venue. On July 6, Worthington joined Enerco’s motion.

On July 24, 2023, the court approved Coloma Store’s settlement with the Piersons.

On August 17, 2023, M.B. Sturgis and Weber-Stephen Products, LLC (Weber-Stephen) filed the present application. A hearing on their application is set for September 21.

M.B. Sturgis and Weber-Stephen move for a determination of good faith settlement with the Piersons. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS the motion.

In a noticed motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (a)(1), “[a]ny party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors.” “A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (c).)

In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499 (Tech-Bilt), the supreme court identified factors courts consider when determining if a settlement is in good faith pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6. However, when the good faith nature of a settlement is uncontested, the court need not consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.) “[W]hen 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.” (Ibid.)

In this case, the court finds M.B. Sturgis and Weber-Stephen’s application adequately describes the background of this case. The court also finds the motion provides sufficient reasoning as to why the settlement was reached in good faith, with M.B. Sturgis and Weber-Stephen recognizing settlement now results in a lower amount than could be awarded at trial and avoids attorney fees, costs, and expenses of additional litigation. They also state the settlement is free of any collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed at injuring the interests of non-settling parties.

Accordingly, because the court is not in receipt of any timely opposition and the motion provides sufficient grounds for a good faith determination, it is GRANTED.

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS M.B. Sturgis and Weber-Stephen’s motion for a determination of good faith settlement.

[1] Because Plaintiffs Michael Pierson, Katie Person, and Courtney Pierson have the same last name, the court will refer to them individually by their first names and collectively by their last name.