2013-00147454-CU-IC

Centex Real Estate Corporation vs. Adland Venture

Nature of Proceeding: Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Filed By: Wilkins, Gabriella A.

This matter was originally set for hearing on 12/21/2017 but was at the request of counsel continued to this date for oral argument. The Court’s original tentative ruling posted on 12/20/2017 is set forth below.

The Court has in the interim received plaintiff’s “supplemental brief” which was not invited and which the opposing party has had no opportunity to address. Regardless, the “supplemental brief” essentially argues that the Court should issue an order which specifically finds that plaintiff’s proposed settlement allocations are reasonable and in good faith but as explained in the original tentative ruling, plaintiff failed to provide any authority for the proposition that such a finding be expressly included in the order and nothing in the supplemental brief changes the Court’s view. While a good faith motion may in certain cases require the moving party to provide allocations of the settlement proceeds, the fact remains that an order granting a good faith motion need only state that the motion is granted which in turn, provides the settling parties with the protections set forth in Code of Civil Procedure §877 et seq. and related case law. Accordingly, there is no need to alter the original tentative ruling.

Original Tentative Ruling:

Centex Real Estate Company, LLC’s (“Centex”) motion for determination of good faith settlement is effectively unopposed and is GRANTED, as follows.

The notice of motion does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure §1010 or CRC Rule 3.1110(a).

The opposition filed by defendant Creative Design Interiors (“CDI”) was not timely but it was nevertheless considered. This opposition does not argue that any of the settlements at issue here fails to meet the good faith standard but instead objects solely to the proposed order submitted with the moving papers to the extent it purports to incorporate and/or approve the allocations made in the moving papers, since such allocations are not binding.

Coupled with the lack of substantive opposition, the Court finds the settlements between Centex and plaintiff homeowners and between Centex and the four (4) identified subcontractors to be in good faith within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure §877 and §877.6, thereby entitling the settling parties to the benefits specified in these statutes and related decisional law.

In light of CDI’s objection, the Court declines to sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers. Centex correctly points out that an allocation of settlement proceeds to the various types of damages is necessary in a case like this and that the failure to provide an allocation will effectively preclude a good faith determination (see, e.g., Dillingham Construction, N.A., Inc. v. Nadel Partnership, Inc. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 264, 282 [“Alcal, Erreca’s and Regan Roofing all agree that the settling parties must include an allocation or a valuation of the various claims in their settlement agreement in order to obtain a finding of good faith” (citing Alcal Roofing & Insulation v. Superior Court (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1121, 1122-1125; Erreca’s v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1481; Regan Roofing, Co. v. Superior Court (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1685, 1694]), but Centex has provided and the Court is aware of no authority which requires the proposed allocation(s) be referenced in the order or be determined to be in “good faith.”

Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312, moving party to prepare an appropriate proposed order re: good faith settlement.