Airborne America, Inc. v. Kenway Composites
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion for a good faith settlement determination and a pending motion to dismiss. The court granted the joint motion, dismissed the case with prejudice, and denied the motion to dismiss as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Joint Motion for Good Faith Settlement Determination“the Court hereby finds the settlement between the Parties was made in good faith pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6, and the factors outlined in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates, 38 Cal. 3d 488 (1985). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion.” | agree with court The court applied the correct state law standard for good faith settlements in federal court exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. The order recites that there was no opposition and that the settlement met the statutory and case law factors. The decision follows from the cited authorities and the procedural posture. |
Dismissing the case with prejudice“the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this action in its entirety.” | agree with court Dismissal with prejudice is the standard consequence of a good faith settlement under California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6(c) when agreed upon by the parties. The court correctly applied this provision. |
Denying the Motion to Dismiss as moot“the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant Hill & Smith Holdings, PLC’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 31).” | agree with court Once the case is dismissed with prejudice based on a settlement, any pending motions to dismiss are rendered moot. This is a standard procedural consequence. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and applies the appropriate state law standards for good faith settlements in federal court. It correctly identifies the relevant statutes and case law. The reasoning is sufficient for a routine settlement order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AIRBORNE AMERICA, INC., a Nevada Case No.: 20-CV-2208 JLS (BLM) corporation, 12 ORDER (1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH 13 Plaintiff, SETTLEMENT DETERMINATION 14 v. (2) DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT; AND (3) DISMISSING 15 KENWAY COMPOSITES, et al., CASE WITH PREJUDICE 16 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 31, 43) 17 18 19 Presently before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion of All Parties for Order 20 Determining Good Faith Settlement and for Entry of Dismissal with Prejudice (ECF No. 21 43). Good cause appearing and there being no opposition, the Court hereby finds the 22 settlement between the Parties was made in good faith pursuant to California Code of Civil 23 Procedure sections 877 and 877.6, and the factors outlined in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward- 24 Clyde & Associates, 38 Cal. 3d 488 (1985). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Joint 25 Motion. As agreed by the Parties and pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 26 section 877.6(c), the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this action in its entirety. 27 Each Party shall bear its own costs. 28 /// 1 In light of the Parties’ settlement, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant Hill & 2 || Smith Holdings, PLC’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 31). The Clerk of the Court shall 3 || close the file. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: February 7, 2022 tt 6 pee Janis L. Sammartino 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Cites, in this corpus
- Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates L.A. 31826 · 1985-05-02