Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01778/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01778-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL PIERSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

M.B. STURGIS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01778 JLT EPG

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND AND 

APPROVING DEFENDANT 

WORTHINGTON’S MOTION FOR 

DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH 

SETTLEMENT, AND 

(Docs. 21, 65, and 84)

Michael Pierson and Courtney Pierson bring this action against Defendants, including 

Enerco Group, Inc. and Worthington Industries, Inc.1, for negligence and strict liability in the 

death of Katie Pierson following a propane gas explosion. Plaintiffs initiated this action in the Los 

Angeles County Superior Court and seek a remand of the matter to state Court following 

Defendants’ removal to the federal court.2 (Doc. 21.) While the motion was pending, Plaintiffs 

and Defendant Worthington entered into a settlement agreement, and Worthington moved for a 

determination that “the settlement meets the standards of good faith within the meaning of 

California Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6.” (Doc. 65 at 2.)

1 Defendants report that late last year, Worthington’s name changed to “Worthington Enterprises, Inc.” 

(Doc. 65-2 at 1, Warren Decl. ¶ 1.)

2 Defendants removed the action to the Central District of California, which transferred the matter to this 

Court. (Docs. 43, 44.)

Case 1:23-cv-01778-JLT-EPG Document 94 Filed 12/30/24 Page 1 of 3
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

2

The magistrate judge found the removal to the federal court by Enerco was timely. (Doc. 

85 at 5-7.) In addition, the magistrate judge found “Enerco met its burden in establishing 

complete diversity between the parties.” (Id. at 9; see also id. at 7-9.) Finally, the magistrate 

judge rejected Plaintiffs’ contention that Enerco waived its right to removal by previously filing a 

motion to transfer venue, “because the case was not removable when the motion was filed.” (Id.

at 10.) Thus, the magistrate judge recommended the motion to remand be denied. (Id. at 14.)

Evaluating Plaintiffs’ settlement with Worthington, the magistrate judge found the 

“settlement was in good faith.” (Doc. 84 at 14.) The magistrate judge observed, “It is undisputed 

that the settlement was the result of arms-length negotiations between Plaintiffs and 

Worthington.” (Id.) The magistrate judge also observed: “The evidence offered in support of the 

conclusion that Worthington’s liability is minimal or non- existent, particularly the declaration of 

Malcolm Warren relating to post-accident testing and the deposition testimony of Michael 

Pierson, is substantial and persuasive.” (Id.) Furthermore, the magistrate judge observed that 

“Enerco admits that post-accident testing revealed a small propane leak between the Enerco 

heater and the connecting hose.” (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the motion 

for determination of a good faith settlement be granted. (Id.)

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that 

any objections were to be filed within 30 days. (Id. at 14.) The Court advised the parties hat the 

“failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” 

(Id. at 14-15, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) No objections 

were filed, and the time to do so has passed.

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court conducted a de novo review of this case. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 

are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 19, 2024 (Doc. 84) are 

ADOPTED in full.

2. Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (Doc. 21) is DENIED.

///

Case 1:23-cv-01778-JLT-EPG Document 94 Filed 12/30/24 Page 2 of 3
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

3

3. Defendant Worthington’s motion for determination of good faith settlement (Doc. 65) is 

GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2024 

Case 1:23-cv-01778-JLT-EPG Document 94 Filed 12/30/24 Page 3 of 3