Sunterra Corporation v. Perini Building

Filing 745

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 04/03/09 ORDERING that the 716 Motion for Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED. Perini's cross claim, to the extent it names TW Construction Co., Inc. shall be DISMISSED with prejudice. (Benson, A.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 15 16 17 AND ALL RELATED CROSS ACTIONS. 18 19 20 21 In the present action, Plaintiff sued Defendant Perini ----oo0oo---PERINI BUILDING COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants. ______________________________ ORDER SUNTERRA CORPORATION, et al., No. 2:04-cv-00784-MCE-EFB UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

22 Building Company ("Perini") for various breach of contract and 23 breach of warranty claims in connection with the construction of 24 Plaintiff's EVR Lake Tahoe Resort facility located in Lake Tahoe 25 California. Perini acted as the general contractor on the

26 project and it, in turn, filed cross claims against a variety of 27 subcontractors involved with the project, including Cross28 Defendant TW Construction, Inc. ("TW"). 1

1 TW now seeks to obtain a judicial determination that its 2 settlement with Perini in the amount of $150,000.00 is a good 3 faith settlement within the meaning of California Code of Civil 4 Procedure § 877.6. 5 follows: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 877.6. 18 19 The California Supreme Court, in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. (d) The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue. (a) (1) Any party to an action wherein it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors 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 . . . ...... (c) 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. That section provides in pertinent part, as

20 Woodward-Clyde & Assoc., 38 Cal. 3d 488, 494 (Cal. 1985) found 21 that the main purpose of § 877.6 is to encourage both settlement 22 and the equitable sharing of costs among the parties at fault. 23 district court may properly consult the provisions of § 877.6 in 24 determining whether an early settlement meets the requisite good 25 faith scrutiny. See, e.g., Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. A

26 Butler, 904 F.2d 505, 511 (9th Cir. 1990). 27 /// 28 /// 2

1 The party asserting an absence of good faith has the burden or 2 proof in establishing that the settlement is so far our of the 3 ballpark in relation to the factors identified by Tech-Bilt1 so as 4 not to merit protection under § 877.6. 5 Significantly, no opposition has been filed by any of the

6 numerous parties to this litigation suggesting that TW's 7 settlement was not made in good faith. The evidence shows that

8 the settlement was reached following extensive negotiations with 9 Peter Dekker, the special master assigned to this case. In

10 addition, TW has produced evidence suggesting that the amount of 11 the settlement substantially exceeds its share of the remediation 12 costs claimed by Plaintiffs in connection with the construction 13 project underlying this litigation. 14 Given these factors, and good cause appearing, TW's Motion The Court

15 for Good Faith Settlement Determination is GRANTED.2 16 accordingly finds as follows: 17 1.

That the settlement between TW and Perini in the amount

18 of One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00) was made 19 in good faith pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 20 877.6 and the standards for good faith as set forth in Tech-Bilt, 21 supra; 22 /// 23 24 25 26 27 28 Those factors include, inter alia, consideration of the amount paid in settlement in relation to the settlor's proportionate liability, the existence of fraud or collusion in reaching the settlement, and recognition that the settlor should pay less in settlement than if found liable following trial. Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal. 3d at 494. Because oral argument was not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h). 3
2 1

1

2.

That such settlements bars any pending or future cross

2 claims or complaints by alleged joint tortfeasors or co-obligors, 3 against TW Construction Company, Inc., for equitable contribution 4 or partial, comparative, or implied indemnity related in any way 5 to the construction project at issue herein; 6 3. That Pereini's cross claim, to the extent it names TW

7 Construction Company, Inc., shall be dismissed, with prejudice. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 _____________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 3, 2009