2015-00186315-CU-PO

Qixing Yuan vs. The Legends at Willow Creek, LP

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Dismiss (Joinder by Eagle Ridge)

Filed By: Weiner, Matthew H.

Defendants and Cross-Complainants FF Development, L.P.; FF Properties, LP dba Fairfield Properties; Fairmark Development, L.P.; Fairfield Residential, LLC; Fairfield Residential, Inc.; and Willow Crossing Apartments, L.P. (collectively, “Fairfield”) motion to dismiss the cross-complaints of The Legends at Willow Creek, LP; Jalson Co., Inc. dba Gerson Blitar & Associates; Filbert Management, Inc.; Don Blessen, Inc.; JAD Construction, Inc.; Alco General Contractors; Kenneth Clark; Development Services Consulting, LLC; and Development Services Construction, LLC and barring any indemnity cross-complaints in the future relating to plaintiffs’ claims is granted.

This action concerns an accident that took place at a Folsom apartment complex in July 2015 that resulted in the death of Chris Yuan. Plaintiffs brought suit against the owner of the property (The Legends at Willow Creek, LP and Jalson Co., Inc. dba Gerson Bakar & Associates and Filbert Management, Inc.) (collectively, “Legends”) and engineers and contractors that worked for Legends (JAD Construction, Alco, Don Blessen, Ken Clark/DSC). Plaintiffs also sued entities involved in the original development of the complex, which took place in 1998-1999: the Fairfield defendants, Architects Orange, Van Dorpe Chou

Associates, Lee Ornamental Iron and related entities, David Sewell and related entities, Eagle Ridge Construction, Ladell Inc. dba Johnson Air and Villara Corporation (collectively, “Original Construction Group”)

The motion is made on the grounds that the settlement reached by and between plaintiffs and Fairfield; Architects Orange; Van Dorpe Chou Associates; David Sewell/SieiTa Shower Pans/Hot Tar; Eagle Ridge Construction, Inc.; Ladell Inc., dba Johnson Air; Villara Corporation flea Beutler Corporation; and Lee Ornamental Iron has been found to have been made in good faith pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §877.6. The order granting the good faith settlement was filed January 23, 2018. (ROA # 1066). Fairfield seeks an order in accordance with the good faith finding that bars and

dismisses all indemnity cross-complaints against settling parties.

Joinder by Eagle Construction & Roofing is granted.

A determination by the court that a settlement is made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligator’s claims for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault, Code Civ. Proc. §877,6(c). Further, where a

release is given in good faith to one or more tortfeasors claimed to be liable for the same tort, it shall discharge the party to whom it is given from all liability for any contribution to any other parties. Code Civ. Proc. §877(b). Section 877.6 provides a procedure to determine whether a settlement has been made in good
faith “but does not purport to confer authority to render declarations that actions or claims are ‘barred’ by such a settlement.” The Housing Group v. Superior Court (1994) 160 Cal.App.3d 1237, 126, citing Shane v. Superior Court (1984) 160 CaI.App.3d 1237, 1246, emphasis in original. Consequently, the good faith order does not, without more, bar the cross-complaints of non-settling defendants.

Legends at Willow Creek has filed a limited opposition stating that Fairfield’s Motion improperly seeks to extinguish any further cross complaints for indemnity against the settling parties, which they contend is inconsistent with Code of Civil Procedure Section 877.6, and (2) neither the Motion nor the [Proposed] Orders clearly designate the parties seeking relief or, more importantly, the parties against which the Cross-Complaint is sought to be dismissed. However, Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6(c) provides that: 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. Therefore he first contention is rejected.

Don Blessen has filed a response stating that the formal order should make it clear that the dismissal of cross-complaints for indemnity only apply to settling defendants and not to other cross-defendants.

The Court agrees that the formal order must clearly articulate which party’s cross-complaints are dismissed and as against which parties.

Moving parties shall prepare pursuant to CRC 3. 1312 an amended formal order that clearly identifies which cross-complaints, and as to which cross-defendants, are being dismissed as a result of the good faith settlement order.