GH Palmer, Inc., et al. v. Aquatherm, L.P., et al.

CASE NO.: 21STCV23784 MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT DETERMINATION BY CROSS- DEFENDANT TENCO SOLAR INC. MOTION OF DEFENDANTS AQUATHERM, L.P., AETNA NA, L.C. AND AQUATHERM GMBH'S TO REOPEN DISCOVERY This is a strict products liability action concerning the use of piping in three properties. Before the court are two motions: (1) Motion for Good Faith Settlement Determination, and (2) Motion to Reopen Discovery. The court addresses these motions in turn. I. DISCUSSION RE GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT DETERMINATION A.

Background

On June 25, 2021, Plaintiffs, GH Palmer Inc., Palmer/Flower Street Properties, GHP Management Corporation, Palmer Temple Street Properties LLC, 918 Broadway Associates LLC, and LR 9 th & Broadway LLC, commenced this action against Defendants, Aquatherm, L.P., Aetna NA, L.C., and Aquaherm GMBH. On February 23, 2024, Defendants filed a Cross-Complaint against GH Palmer Inc. and GJM Engineering, Inc. for negligence, contribution, and implied and equitable indemnity. On April 10, 2024, GJM Engineering, Inc. filed a Cross-Complaint against Roes 1 through 100 for equitable indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.

On October 10, 2024, GJM Engineering, Inc. filed an amendment to its Cross-Complaint naming Tenco Solar, Inc. ("Tenco") as Roe 1. On June 25, 2026, Tenco filed this motion for determination of good faith settlement with Plaintiffs. On August 19, 2026, Tenco filed a notice of non-opposition. B. Legal Standard "Any party to an

action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or coobligors on a contract shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or coobligors ...."¿ (Code of Civ. Proc., Sec. 877.6.)¿ Good faith settlements further two sometimes competing policies: (1) the equitable sharing of costs among the parties at fault, and (2) the encouragement of settlements.¿ (Erreca's v.

Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1487.)¿¿¿ ¿ ¿ A court must consider several factors including "a rough approximation of plaintiffs' total recovery and the settlor's proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial."¿ (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499 (Tech-Bilt).)¿¿"Other relevant considerations include the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants, as well as the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants." ¿(Id.)¿¿¿¿ ¿ ¿ The evaluation of whether a settlement was made in good faith is¿ required to "be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement."¿ (Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal.3d at p. 499.) ¿"[A] court not only looks at the alleged tortfeasor's potential liability to the plaintiff, but it must also consider the culpability of the tortfeasor vis-à-vis other parties alleged to be responsible for the same injury." ¿(TSI Seismic Tenant Space, Inc. v.

Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 159, 166.)¿ "Potential liability for indemnity to a nonsettling defendant is an important consideration for the trial court in determining whether to approve a settlement by an alleged tortfeasor."¿ (Id.)¿¿¿ ¿ ¿ In City of Grand View Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261, the court provided the following guidance regarding a motion for a good faith settlement determination:¿¿¿ ¿ ¿ "If the good faith settlement is contested, section 877.6, subdivision (d), sets forth a workable ground rule for the hearing by placing the burden of proving the lack of good faith on the contesting party.

Once there is a showing made by the settlor of the settlement, the burden of proof on the issue of good faith shifts to the nonsettlor who asserts that the settlement was not made in good faith. If contested, declarations by the nonsettlor should be filed which in many cases could require the moving party to file responsive counterdeclarations to negate the lack of good faith asserted by the nonsettling contesting party."¿ ¿ C. Application 1. Procedural Requirements

"Any party to an action in which 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 or co-obligors, upon giving notice in the manner provided in subdivision (b) of Section 1005."¿ (Code of Civ. Proc., Sec. 877.6, subd. (a)(1); Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1347.)¿¿ Here, Tenco served this motion on all parties who have appeared in this action by electronic service on June 25, 2026.¿ The hearing for the motion was scheduled for October 8, 2026.

During the Final Status Conference on June 30, 2026, Tenco orally requested that the court advance the hearing. There being no objection, the court granted the requested and scheduled the hearing for August 26, 2026. All parties waived notice. The court finds Tenco complied with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005. The procedural requirements are satisfied. 2. ¿ Good Faith Determination ¿ After extensive litigation, mediation sessions, and arms-length negotiations, Plaintiffs and Tenco entered into a settlement agreement on May 13, 2026. (See Cooper Decl., P. 9.)

Under the terms of the agreement, Tenco agrees to pay Plaintiffs the total sum of $350,000.00 in exchange for a full release of all claims arising out of the work performed at Plaintiff's projects. (Cooper Decl., Ex. A.) D.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court concludes the settlement between Plaintiffs and Tenco was made in good faith.¿ The unopposed Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED. II. DISCUSSION RE MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY A.

Background

On July 24, 2026, Defendants filed this motion to reopen discovery for the purpose of subpoenaing Richard M. Cartmell for deposition, to supplement their retained and non-retained experts' respective opinions, and to cross-examine Plaintiffs' and GJM Engineering, Inc.'s retained experts. On August 13, 2026, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On August 19, 2026, Defendants filed a reply. B.

Legal Standard

Except as otherwise provided, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for trial of the action.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2024.020(a).)¿ On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set.¿ This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating a good faith effort at informal resolution.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2024.050(a).)¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿

¿¿ The court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity and the reasons for the discovery, (2) the diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier, (3) any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party, and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action."¿ (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 2024.050(b).)¿¿¿¿ C. Application Upon consideration of arguments and the relevant factors, the court finds good cause does not exist to reopen limited discovery.¿¿ ¿¿ The Relevant Factors ¿¿ ¿¿ 1. The necessity of and reason for discovery:¿ Defendants seek to reopen discovery because it only recently learned that, in 2021, Plaintiffs engaged Richard Cartmell, a mechanical engineer, to perform comprehensive tests of the piping system at the Lorenzo property. Cartmell produced a report which found construction and design defects and proposed significant repairs to systems independent from the replacement of the Aquatherm piping.

In opposition, Plaintiffs argues there is no necessity to depose Cartmell because Cartmell does not have any unique or discoverable evidence. Rather, Plaintiffs contend that Cartmell's 2021 report covers the same topics Defendants and their experts investigated and discovered from others. Further, Defendants have already designated experts to address the same issues covered in Cartmell's report. In Plaintiffs' estimation, Cartmell does not have unique, discoverable evidence. The court agrees with Plaintiffs.

This factor weighs against Defendants' request.¿¿¿¿ ¿¿¿ 2. Diligence or Lack of Diligence; Reasons Discovery Was Not Completed; Earlier Hearing for the Motion:¿ Defendants argue they only learned of Cartmell's 2021 report when Plaintiffs inadvertently produced it in June 2026. The court is not persuaded. Plaintiffs attached Cartmell's report to the original complaint. This action was filed on June 2021. Defendants knew of Cartmell and his report since June 2021 yet took no action to depose Cartmell.

This factor also weighs against Defendants' request.¿¿¿¿ 3. Likelihood Permitting Discovery Will Prevent The Case

From Going To Trial; Interfere With The Trial Calendar; Result In Prejudice:¿ Defendant argues "[t]here is little likelihood that either hearing the discovery motion or re-opening discovery will prevent the case from going to trial to the date set, or result in any prejudice." The court is not persuaded. Defendants' basis for reopening discovery is not cabined to Mr. Cartmell, but to re-examine its own experts and examine Plaintiffs' and GJM's experts. In effect, Defendants seek to restart expert discovery.

The request is not sufficiently limited. Further, a trial date was on the verge on being set when Defendants filed this motion. Reopening discovery at this late hour would require a later trial date. The court finds this factor does not weigh in favor Defendants' request.¿¿¿¿¿¿ After balancing the factors and considering the equities, the court finds good cause does not exist to reopen discovery.¿¿¿ D.

Conclusion

The motion to reopen discovery is DENIED. III. DISPOSITIONS The motion for good faith settlement determination is Granted. The motion to reopen discovery is Denied.¿ ¿ Moving parties to give notice.¿¿ ¿ Dated: August 26, 2026 | | | | Brock T. Hammond Judge of the Superior Court | | Case Number: 24STCV28158 Hearing Date: August 26, 2026 Dept: 407 Tentative Ruling Judge Brock T. Hammond, Department 407 HEARING DATE: August 26, 2026 TRIAL DATE: Dismissed CASE: Ela Figueroa v. Kia America, Inc., et al.