Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01525/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01525-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1332tl Diversity-Torts to Land

---

1

3:15-cv-01525-GPC-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREENFIELD MHP ASSOCIATES, 

L.P.; STARLIGHT MHP, LLC; 

STARLIGHT EXCHANGE, LLC; 

DAVIS GROUP EXCHANGE, LLC; and 

VILLA CAJON MHC, L.P.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AMETEK, INC.; SENIOR 

OPERATIONS, LLC; and DOES 1 

through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:15-cv-01525-GPC-AGS

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE MOTION FOR 

DETERMINATION OF GOOD 

FAITH SETTLEMENT

[ECF No. 164]

Before the Court is a motion for determination of good faith settlement filed by 

Defendant Senior Operations, LLC (“Senior”). (ECF No. 164.) Defendant Ametek, Inc.

filed a response to the motion on February 23, 2018 (ECF No. 171), and Senior filed a 

reply on March 2, 2018 (ECF No. 173). For the reasons set forth below, the Court 

concludes that any determination of the good faith nature of this settlement would be 

merely advisory, and therefore DENIES the motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

I. Background

This case is one of four related cases involving groundwater contamination. See 

Case 3:15-cv-01525-GPC-AGS Document 175 Filed 03/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:15-cv-01525-GPC-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Trujillo, et al. v. Ametek, Inc., et al., No. 3:15-cv-1394 (S.D. Cal.); Greenfield MHP 

Assocs., L.P., et al. v. Ametek, Inc., et al., No. 3:15-cv-1525 (S.D. Cal.) (“Cox I”); Cox, et 

al. v. Ametek, Inc., et al., No. 3:17-cv-597 (S.D. Cal.); Cox, et al. v. Ametek, Inc., et al., 

No. 3:17-cv-1211 (S.D. Cal.) (“Cox II”). The complaints in these four cases allege that 

while Ametek owned and operated an aerospace parts manufacturing facility in El Cajon, 

California, it placed its waste in an underground sump on the facility property. The waste 

allegedly breached the sump and created a massive plume of groundwater contamination 

extending beyond the facility property. According to the complaints, the plume extends 

underneath an elementary school and three mobile home parks. In this case, owners of 

the mobile home parks assert tort claims against Defendants resulting from the 

contamination of their properties. (ECF No. 17.) A motion for summary judgment filed 

by Ametek is currently pending before the Court. (ECF No. 141.)

II. Discussion

According to the motion, Plaintiffs and Senior have “entered into a Settlement 

Agreement and Release whereby Senior has agreed to pay Plaintiffs $1,500,000 and 

release and dismiss with prejudice all third-party cross-claims that it has asserted against 

Plaintiffs and their affiliated entities in the Cox I Action and Plaintiffs have agreed to 

release all claims and dismiss with prejudice this action against Senior.” (ECF No. 164-1

at 2.) This settlement, however, “is contingent upon Court approval of the settlement 

agreements in” all four of the related cases. (Id.) Senior has reached a similar agreement 

with the plaintiffs in Cox II: the plaintiffs and Senior have agreed to settle that case, but 

only if settlements are reached and approved in all four of these related cases. See No. 

3:17-cv-1211 (S.D. Cal.), ECF No. 37-1 at 2.

In light of the contingency that all four cases reach settlement before the settlement 

in this case is effective, Ametek argues that the instant motion is premature. Because 

“Trujillo and Cox I are putative class actions in which classes have not been certified,”

and Plaintiffs and Senior “have yet to reduce their agreement to writing” in those cases,

Ametek argues that a determination of good faith as to the settlement in this case, at this 

Case 3:15-cv-01525-GPC-AGS Document 175 Filed 03/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:15-cv-01525-GPC-AGS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

time, would serve no purpose. (ECF No. 171 at 2.) Ametek explains that before it 

approves any settlement in either class action, the Court will have to consider issues 

relating to certification, which Ametek intends to oppose. See Amchem Prods. Inc. v. 

Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997) (a district court must apply “undiluted, even 

heightened, attention [to class certification] in the settlement context”). Ametek therefore 

requests that that this Court “postpone entering a good faith determination until after the 

class certification issues have been resolved, such that those settlements have final terms 

and the global settlement can be fully and fairly evaluated.” (ECF No. 171 at 4.)

The Court agrees with Ametek that a finding of good faith at this juncture would 

be premature and serves no purpose beneficial to any of the interested parties. As the 

motion indicates, the settlement in this case will not become effective until settlements 

are approved in the other three actions, including the two putative class actions in which 

no proposed settlement has yet been offered to the Court. A determination, today, that 

the terms of this proposed settlement were reached by good faith efforts would be subject 

to change depending on the outcomes of the settlement efforts in the other cases. In other 

words, any determination of good faith as to the settlement presented in this motion 

would be merely advisory.

III. Conclusion

The Court finds no reason to issue an advisory determination as to the good faith 

nature of a settlement that is conditioned on future events. As a result, the motion for 

determination of good faith settlement is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2018

Case 3:15-cv-01525-GPC-AGS Document 175 Filed 03/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3