On August 01, 2018 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
American De Rosa Lamparts, Llc,
San Remo Hesperia Ii Limited Partnership,
Westinghouse Lighting Lp,
Jenkins, Eric,
Jenkins, Latoya,
and
American De Rosa Lamparts, Llc,
Luminance Corporation,
San Remo Hesperia Ii Limited Partnership,
Sprint Electric, Inc.,
Westinghouse Lighting Corporation,
Westinghouse Lighting Lp,
for Personal Injury Non-Motor Vehicle Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
SUPERIOR
y
é“ I
comm or CALaFORMA
L E D
BRADLEY ANDERSON, SBN 223479 coumv 0F 5A5; BERNARDINO
LAW OFFICE OF TRACEY LAZARUS SAN BERNARD‘NO DISTRICT
17901 Von Karman Ave., Suite 300
Irvine, California92614—5240 FEB ii ff 2021.
Offipe: (949) 222-2930
V
Direct: (949) 726-7608
,
', 7
,
8V AflidJIQL’ZQA 1;“ a "
Fax: (949) 222-2940 $TEPHANIE (zma DEPUTV
Email: brad.anderson@zurichna.com
Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant, AMERICAN DE ROSA
O(OWVOU'I-waA
LAMPARTS, LLC (sued and served as DOE 1)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO — CIVIL DIVISION
ERIC JENKINS, individually, LATOYA CASE NO. CIVDS1 81 9908
JENKINS, an individual and as guardian
ad litem for ELYJAH JENKINS, a minor Judge Donald Alvarez
child and individual, Department $23
AMERICAN DE ROSA LAMPARTS,
Plaintiffs, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT AND FOR
AN ORDER BARRING CONTRIBUTION
PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION 877 BY
DEFENDANTS SPRINT ELECTRIC,
SAN REMO HESPERIA ll LIMITED INC. AND SAN REMO HESPERIA ll
PARTNERSHIP, WESTINGHOUSE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;
LIGHTING CORPORATION and DOES 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
TO 50 inclusive,, AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF
NNNNNNNNNA—AAAA—AAAAA
mflmmwa—‘OOOONOUUIAOONA
BRADLEY R. ANDERSON
Defendants. Date: February 25, 2021
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: $23
Complaintfiled: August 1, 2018
Trial Date: July 26, 2021
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.
Defendant, Cross—Defendant, and Cross-Complainant, AMERICAN DE ROSA LAMPARTS,
LLC (DOE 1) (“AMERICAN”) hereby submits the following Opposition to the Motion for
Determination of Good Faith Settlement and for an Order Barring Contribution Pursuant to
TLM 210210 JENKINS OPPOSITION TO MOT GOOD FAITH.DOC-1 -
AMERICAN DE ROSA LAMPARTS, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT
C.C.P. § 877 (the “Motion”) of Defendants SPRINT ELECTRIC, INC. (“Sprint”) and SAN
REMO HESPERIA || LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (“San Remo”).
_M_EMORAN_DUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
l. INTRODUCTION.
Two tortfeasors in this action, defendants Sprint and San Remo, move for a determination of
OtomflmUl-hOONA
good faith settlement. AMERICAN opposes the Motion because the proposed settlement is
not within the reasonable range of Sprint and San Remo’s proportionate liability under the
facts as set forth by the California Supreme Court in Tech—Bui/t, Inc. v. Woodward-C/yde &
Associates (1985) 38 Ca|.3d 488. The disproportionately low settlement of $75,000.00,
when Plaintiffs clearly value the settlement value of the case in the range between$16.5
million and $28.5 million, clearly does not promote the goal of equitable allocation among
multiple tortfeasors. Sprint and San Remo’s collective proposed settlement with Plaintiffs is
not even 1% of what Plaintiff demanded from AMERICAN to settle AMERICAN’s liability.
This means that each of m primary ton‘feasors (each with at least equal culpability to
AMERICAN) would pay only 0.006% of what Plaintiffs demand from AMERICAN. It is well
established that, under Tech-Bi/t, /nc., a good faith settlement must be “in the ballpark” of
the settling party’s liability. As explained in more detail herein, the collective proposed
settlement between Sprint, San Remo and Plaintiffs falls far short of the Tech-Bilt standard.
NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA
Importantly, no liability testing has been performed to date insofar as the fan blade
mfimm¥UNAO©mNmU1$WNA
and fan is concerned. Much focus has been placed on damages and depositions have
been conducted in this regard. However, liability testing appears to have been ignored in
large part. Despite requests to conduct such testing, Plaintiffs insist that such testing should
only occur after the hearing of the Motion. At a minimum, AMERICAN respectfully requests
that this Court continue the hearing on the Motion so that all parties have an opportunity to
conduct expert testing to determine the cause of the fan blade break.
A. Factual Background.
This matter arises out of an alleged traumatic brain injury suffered by the minor son of
Plaintiffs, Elyjah Jenkins, while he was sleeping in his bedroom in the early morning hours
TLM 210210 JENKINS OPPOSITION TO MOT GOOD FAITHDOC-2-
AMERICAN DE ROSA LAMPARTS, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT
Preview
SUPERIOR y é“ I comm or CALaFORMA L E D BRADLEY ANDERSON, SBN 223479 coumv 0F 5A5; BERNARDINO LAW OFFICE OF TRACEY LAZARUS SAN BERNARD‘NO DISTRICT 17901 Von Karman Ave., Suite 300 Irvine, California92614—5240 FEB ii ff 2021. Offipe: (949) 222-2930 V Direct: (949) 726-7608 , ', 7 , 8V AflidJIQL’ZQA 1;“ a " Fax: (949) 222-2940 $TEPHANIE (zma DEPUTV Email: brad.anderson@zurichna.com Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant, AMERICAN DE ROSA O(OWVOU'I-waA LAMPARTS, LLC (sued and served as DOE 1) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO — CIVIL DIVISION ERIC JENKINS, individually, LATOYA CASE NO. CIVDS1 81 9908 JENKINS, an individual and as guardian ad litem for ELYJAH JENKINS, a minor Judge Donald Alvarez child and individual, Department $23 AMERICAN DE ROSA LAMPARTS, Plaintiffs, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT AND FOR AN ORDER BARRING CONTRIBUTION PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION 877 BY DEFENDANTS SPRINT ELECTRIC, SAN REMO HESPERIA ll LIMITED INC. AND SAN REMO HESPERIA ll PARTNERSHIP, WESTINGHOUSE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; LIGHTING CORPORATION and DOES 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND TO 50 inclusive,, AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF NNNNNNNNNA—AAAA—AAAAA mflmmwa—‘OOOONOUUIAOONA BRADLEY R. ANDERSON Defendants. Date: February 25, 2021 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: $23 Complaintfiled: August 1, 2018 Trial Date: July 26, 2021 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. Defendant, Cross—Defendant, and Cross-Complainant, AMERICAN DE ROSA LAMPARTS, LLC (DOE 1) (“AMERICAN”) hereby submits the following Opposition to the Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement and for an Order Barring Contribution Pursuant to TLM 210210 JENKINS OPPOSITION TO MOT GOOD FAITH.DOC-1 - AMERICAN DE ROSA LAMPARTS, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT C.C.P. § 877 (the “Motion”) of Defendants SPRINT ELECTRIC, INC. (“Sprint”) and SAN REMO HESPERIA || LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (“San Remo”). _M_EMORAN_DUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES l. INTRODUCTION. Two tortfeasors in this action, defendants Sprint and San Remo, move for a determination of OtomflmUl-hOONA good faith settlement. AMERICAN opposes the Motion because the proposed settlement is not within the reasonable range of Sprint and San Remo’s proportionate liability under the facts as set forth by the California Supreme Court in Tech—Bui/t, Inc. v. Woodward-C/yde & Associates (1985) 38 Ca|.3d 488. The disproportionately low settlement of $75,000.00, when Plaintiffs clearly value the settlement value of the case in the range between$16.5 million and $28.5 million, clearly does not promote the goal of equitable allocation among multiple tortfeasors. Sprint and San Remo’s collective proposed settlement with Plaintiffs is not even 1% of what Plaintiff demanded from AMERICAN to settle AMERICAN’s liability. This means that each of m primary ton‘feasors (each with at least equal culpability to AMERICAN) would pay only 0.006% of what Plaintiffs demand from AMERICAN. It is well established that, under Tech-Bi/t, /nc., a good faith settlement must be “in the ballpark” of the settling party’s liability. As explained in more detail herein, the collective proposed settlement between Sprint, San Remo and Plaintiffs falls far short of the Tech-Bilt standard. NNNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA Importantly, no liability testing has been performed to date insofar as the fan blade mfimm¥UNAO©mNmU1$WNA and fan is concerned. Much focus has been placed on damages and depositions have been conducted in this regard. However, liability testing appears to have been ignored in large part. Despite requests to conduct such testing, Plaintiffs insist that such testing should only occur after the hearing of the Motion. At a minimum, AMERICAN respectfully requests that this Court continue the hearing on the Motion so that all parties have an opportunity to conduct expert testing to determine the cause of the fan blade break. A. Factual Background. This matter arises out of an alleged traumatic brain injury suffered by the minor son of Plaintiffs, Elyjah Jenkins, while he was sleeping in his bedroom in the early morning hours TLM 210210 JENKINS OPPOSITION TO MOT GOOD FAITHDOC-2- AMERICAN DE ROSA LAMPARTS, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT