Challenges to good faith settlements that cut off the rights of non-settling defendants to seek indemnification and contribution from settling defendants are nearly always doomed to failure. Trial courts are understandably eager to clear their dockets and there’s no docket-clean-up pitcher like the first defendant to settle. Deny the motion and bring a settled defendant and his trial-ready resources back in to the litigation when the first defendant-domino has just successfully toppled over? Not likely, my friend. Not in the trial court at any rate.
These motions are so difficult to oppose that I’ve seen a target defendant threaten a marginal player (my client) with sanctions just for challenging the target’s very low six-figure settlement in an eight-figure antitrust action.
It looks like low value settlements got just a little bit harder to defend yesterday when the Second District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s good faith settlement finding in Long Beach Memorial Medical Center v. Superior Court (Conners).
Best quotation: “The hospital contends that the physiciansâ€Ÿ $200,000 settlement — representing 2 percent of plaintiffsâ€Ÿ $10 million damages estimate — was so far out of the “ballpark” it was not even in the parking lot.” With a first runner-up to “If section 877.6 is to serve the ends of justice, it must prevent a party from purchasing protection from its indemnification obligation at bargain-basement prices.”
The Court of Appeal relied upon the following “facts” in finding that the trial court abused its considerable discretion in granting a good faith motion to defendant physicians in light of defendant hospital’s opposition.
If this case isn’t depublished (an unfortunate California practice) or taken up for review, it will bear re-reading and deeper thinking about the stategy and tactics of breaking away from the mob to cut a separate deal beneficial to one’s own client without “consider[ing] . . the relevant liability of all parties . . . ”
*/ This is a good place to note the importance of either indicating in the parties’ post-mediation written negotiations that the mediation is continuing (hence the communications remain absolutely protected) or that the mediation has concluded (hence bringing those post-mediation settlement negotiations outside the scope of the strictly enforced mediation confidentiality restrictions).
The Union Internationale des Avocats held its 24th World Forum of Mediation Centres in Singapore on October 13-14. In addition to the usual high level of discourse and the unparalleled opportunity to meet new...By F. Peter Phillips
We all function through thinking processes we develop from early childhood. These “mindsets” determine how we react, how we analyze, how we plan and how we make decisions. Professionally speaking,...By Pete Desrochers
Institute for the Study of Conflict Transformation by Dan SimonIs it finally time for Charlie Brown to trust Lucy not to pull the football away? As mediators, we like to...By Dan Simon