Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02834/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02834-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 130
Nature of Suit: Miller Act
Cause of Action: 40:270 Miller Act

---

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, for

the Use and Benefit of Collins

Plumbing, Inc., a California

Corporation; COLLINS PLUMBING,

INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TURNER-PENICK JOINT VENTURE

et al.,

Defendants.

 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD-PARTY

CLAIMS

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 3:11-cv-2834-GPC-MDD

ORDER GRANTING JOINT

MOTION FOR

DETERMINATION OF GOOD

FAITH SETTLEMENT

(ECF NO. 181)

On July 16, 2014, Turner-Penick Joint Venture (“Turner-Penick”) and Walsh

Engineers, Inc. (“Walsh”) filed a joint motion for determination of good faith

settlement. (ECF No. 181.) The Court set a deadline of August 1, 2014, for the

nonsettling parties to respond to this joint motion. (ECF No. 182.) To date, the Court

has received no response in opposition to Turner-Penick and Walsh’s joint motion.

Under California law, “[w]here a release . . . is given in good faith before . . .

judgment to one or more of a number of tortfeasors claimed to be liable for the same

3:11-cv-2834-GPC-MDD

Case 3:11-cv-02834-GPC-MDD Document 187 Filed 08/05/14 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

tort, or to one or more other co-obligors mutually subject to contribution rights,” the

release shall, among other things, “discharge the party to whom it is given from all

liability for any contribution to any other parties.” Cal. Code Civ. P. § 877.

To obtain a determination that it reached a settlement in good faith, “a settling

party may give notice of settlement to all parties and to the court, together with an

application for determination of good faith settlement.” Cal. Code Civ. P. §

877.6(a)(2). Nonsettling parties are thereafter given an opportunity to contest the

settlement. Id. 

If, after reviewing the application for determination of good faith settlement and

any response(s) thereto, the court determines the settlement was entered in good faith,

“any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor” is barred “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.” Id.

§ 877.6(c); Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates, 38 Cal. 3d 488, 494

(1985); Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 640 F.2d 210, 212 (9th Cir.

1981). 

The party asserting a lack of good faith has the burden of proof on that issue. 

Cal. Code Civ. P. § 877.6(d).

To meet the standard of “good faith,” the amount of the settlement must be

“within the reasonable range of the settling tortfeasor’s proportional share of

comparative liability for the plaintiff’s injuries.” Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal. 3d at 499;see also

Torres v. Union Pac. R. Co., 157 Cal. App.3d 499 (1984) (holding that “a

co-defendant’s settlement price cannot be grossly disproportionate to his fair share of

the damages”).

In applying the reasonable-range test, courts may consider the following factors:

(1) “a rough approximation of the plaintiffs’ total recovery and a settlor's proportionate

liability”; (2) “the amount paid in settlement”; (3) “a recognition that a settlor should

pay lessin settlement than if found liable after a trial”; (4) “the allocation of settlement

2 3:11-cv-2834-GPC-MDD

Case 3:11-cv-02834-GPC-MDD Document 187 Filed 08/05/14 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

proceeds among plaintiffs”; (5) “the financial conditions and insurance policy limits

ofsettling defendants”; and (6) evidence of “collusion, fraud, ortortious conduct aimed

to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.” Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal. 3d at 499. A

settlement will be deemed to have been reached in good faith, so long as it is not so far

“out of the ballpark” in relation to the foregoing factors “as to be inconsistent with the

equitable objectives of the statute.” Id. at 499-500.

A court must only weigh the Tech-Bilt factors when the good-faith nature of a

settlement is disputed. Marine Grp., LLC v. Marine Travelift, Inc., 2013 WL 416407,

at *4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2013) (citing City of Grand Terrace v. Super. Ct., 192 Cal.

App. 2d 1251, 1261 (1987)). In the absence of a dispute, a “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.” Id.

Here, because no nonsettling party has objected to the instant joint motion for

determination of good faith settlement, the Court need not apply the Tech-Bilt factors. 

Having reviewed the joint motion, the Court will grant the joint motion as unopposed. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Turner-Penick and Walsh’s Joint

Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement, (ECF No. 181) is GRANTED.

DATED: August 5, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

3 3:11-cv-2834-GPC-MDD

Case 3:11-cv-02834-GPC-MDD Document 187 Filed 08/05/14 Page 3 of 3