Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 19STCV36819, Date: 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling
Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.
In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:
The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.
Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.
If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.
**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.
Case Number: 19STCV36819 Hearing Date: March 15, 2023 Dept: 31
MOTIONS FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants AMI Metals, Inc.’s and
Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co., Inc.’s Motions for Determination of Good
Faith Settlement are GRANTED.
Background
¿
On February 7, 2020, Plaintiffs filed six (6) Amendments to
Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) naming Mazak Corporation; Haas
Automation, Inc.; Precision Specialty Metals, Inc.; Alcoa, Inc.; Special Metals
Corporation, individually and as Successor-by-Acquisition to Inco Alloys
International, Inc.; and Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc. (erroneously sued as
Ryerson Holding Corporation, individually and as Successor-by-Acquisition to
Atlas Ideal Metals) as Does 1 through 6, respectively.¿¿
The
operative Second Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for:
1)
Negligence;
2)
Strict Liability – Warning
Defect;
3)
Strict Liability – Design
Defect;
4)
Fraudulent Concealment; and
5)
Breach of Implied Warranties.
On September 22, 2022, Plaintiff
filed a Notice of Settlement.
On December 12, 2022, the Court GRANTED IN PART, Defendants Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. Inc. and AMI Metals, Inc. Motion to Seal their Motions for Determination of Good Faith Settlement.
The Court also granted the Defendants’ ex parte application advancing the hearing date and Defendants have given notice of the advanced hearing date.
The
Motions for Good Faith Settlement are now before the Court and remain
unopposed.
Legal Standard
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, the court
applies the factors identified by the California Supreme Court in Tech-Bilt,
Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488 to determine
whether a settlement is in good faith and if the settlement amount is “in the
ballpark” of the settling party’s share of liability for injuries:¿¿¿¿
¿¿¿
1)
a rough approximation of the
plaintiff's total recovery;¿¿¿
2)
an approximation of the
settling party's share of the liability;¿¿¿
3)
recognition that a settling
party should pay less in settlement than if found liable after a trial;¿¿¿
4)
the allocation of the
settlement proceeds among plaintiffs;¿¿¿
5)
the settling party's
financial condition and insurance policy limits;¿¿¿
6)
evidence that the plaintiff
and the settling party acted with an intent to make the non-settling parties
pay more than their fair share (considered fraud and collusion under Tech-Bilt).¿¿¿
¿¿¿
Section 877.6 permits the court to evaluate a settlement
made between a plaintiff and a defendant when the defendant is a joint
tortfeasor with other non-settling defendants. A determination that the
settlement is a good faith settlement under Section 877.6 will bar any claims
for equitable contribution or comparative indemnity. The burden is on the party
opposing the settlement to show it was not made in good faith. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 877.6,¿subd. (d).)¿ Accordingly, the party asserting the lack of “good
faith” may meet this burden by demonstrating that the settlement is so far “out
of the ballpark” as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the
statute. (See Tech-Bilt, Inc., supra, 38 Cal.3d¿at pp. 499-500.)
Such a demonstration would establish that the proposed settlement was not a
“settlement made in good faith” within the terms of Section 877.6. (Id.)¿
Discussion
Settling Defendants AMI Metals, Inc., and Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. Inc. each respectively seek a determination that their settlement, for an undisclosed amount, with Plaintiffs was entered in good faith and meets the standards set out in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1995) 38 Cal.3d 488.
Plaintiffs allege that several defendants, including AMI Metal and Reliance Steel, supplied toxic chemicals contained in metal products called aluminum allows, allegedly supplied by Defendants.
Settling Defendant AMI Metals asserts that its liability remains disputed because the Plaintiffs failed to specify which of AMI Metals’ products contained aluminum allows. (Taylor Decl. ¶ 3.) Thus, the settlement reached is fair in light of the disputed liability. Settling Defendant Reliance Steel also asserts that settlement is fair on the same basis that liability is disputed and Plaintiffs failed to specify which of Reliance Steel’s products might contain aluminum alloy. (Taylor Decl. ¶ 3.)
Settling Defendants AMI Metals and Reliance Steel represent that the settlement reached in September/October 2022 at the Mandatory Settlement Conference, was the result of arms’ length negation and is reasonable and entered in good faith within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6. (Taylor Decls. ¶¶ 4, 5.) Neither the negotiations nor the settlement agreement itself reflect an intent to injure the interest of the non-settling Defendants and was not the product of fraud, collusion, or other improper conduct. (Taylor Decl. ¶ 5.)
The agreement also contains a confidentiality provision. (Taylor Decls. ¶ 6, Ex. A.) The settlement is conditioned upon the Court approving the settlement and the Plaintiffs’ release and dismissal with prejudice as to the Settling Defendants. Each party will bear their own attorney fees and costs.
Since this motion is unopposed, the Settling Defendants’ burden of showing that the settlement was made in good faith is slight. (See City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261 [holding that a barebones motion including a declaration setting forth a brief background is sufficient].)¿
The Court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and not disproportionate to the Settling Defendants’ alleged liability. The Court also finds that the Settling Defendants did not settle with the intent to make the other parties pay more than their fair share of damages and the settlement amount was the result of arms-length negotiations.
Based on the foregoing, Settling Defendants’ respective Motions are GRANTED.
Conclusion
Defendants AMI Metals, Inc.’s and Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co., Inc.’s Motions for Determination of Good Faith Settlement are GRANTED.
Moving parties to give notice.