Manning v. Arconic Inc. ( 2022 )

1 Jennifer K. Stinnett, Esq. [Bar No. 228209] Richard V. De Gruccio, Esq. [Bar No. 214679] 2 CHRISTENSEN HSU SIPES LLP 2485 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 315 3 Sacramento, CA 95833 Telephone: (916) 443-6909 4 Facsimile: (916) 313-0645 Email: jennifer@chs.law 5 richard@chs.law 6 James C. Parker [Bar No. 106149] Bina Ghanaat [Bar No. 264826] 7 HUGO PARKER, LLP 240 Stockton Street, 8th Floor 8 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 808-0300 9 Facsimile: (415) 808-0333 Email: service@HUGOPARKER.com 10 Attorneys for Defendant 11 U.S. MINERALS, INC. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 RONALD DWAYNE MANNING, No. 2:19-CV-02202-MCE-DMC 16 Plaintiff, Assigned to the Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr., Ctrm. 7 17 vs. 18 ARCONIC INC., formerly known as Alcoa, a Delaware corporation; STIPULATION AS TO GOOD FAITH OF 19 MATERION BRUSH INC., formerly SETTLEMENTS BETWEEN DEFENDANTS known as Brush Wellman, Inc., an Ohio AND PLAINTIFF; ORDER THEREON 20 corporation; U.S. MINERALS, INC., a Delaware corporation; WABCO 21 HOLDINGS, INC., as successor-in- interest to Meritor Wabco Vehicle Control 22 Systems, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 120, INCLUSIVE, 23 Defendants. 24 25 By and through their undersigned counsel of record, defendants ARCONIC INC. 26 (now known as Howmet Aerospace Inc.), MATERION BRUSH INC., and U.S. 27 MINERALS, INC. (individually, “Settling Defendant” and collectively the “Settling 28 Defendants”) and plaintiff Ronald Dwayne Manning (“Plaintiff”) (together, the 1 “Parties”), hereby stipulate as follows: 2 WHEREAS, the Settling Defendants are the only active defendants in this personal 3 injury matter (the “Action”); 4 WHEREAS, each Settling Defendant has settled with Plaintiff RONALD 5 DWAYNE MANNING (“Plaintiff”); 6 WHEREAS, through their counsel, each Settling Defendant has shared with all 7 Settling Defendants the material terms of its settlement with Plaintiff or through this 8 stipulation hereby waives any right it may have to learn such terms; and 9 WHEREAS, each Party has had the opportunity to consult with his or its counsel 10 concerning the settlements between Plaintiff and each Settling Defendant; 11 NOW, THEREFORE, subject to the Court’s approval, the Parties stipulate as 12 follows: 13 1. In lieu of each Settling Defendant, whether alone or together with Plaintiff, 14 filing a motion or application and requesting entry of an order finding its settlement of 15 the Action in “good faith” within the meaning of California Code of Civil Procedure § 16 877.6, each Settling Defendant and Plaintiff hereby stipulates that each other Settling 17 Defendant’s settlement is in “good faith.” The Parties further stipulate and request that 18 the Court enter an order finding that each settlement is in good faith within the meaning 19 of California Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6 20 2. That is, the Parties have taken into account all facts and circumstances to 21 determine that each Settling Defendant’s settlement allocates within a “reasonable 22 range” its purported share of liability for Plaintiff’s claimed injuries. Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. 23 Woodward-Clyde & Assoc., 38 Cal. 3d 488, 499 (1985). This assessment included, but is not 24 limited to, Plaintiff’s and each Settling Defendants’ assessment of the strengths, 25 weaknesses, risks of their respective cases (i.e., Plaintiff’s likelihood of prevailing and at 26 what amount; the likelihood of successful affirmative defenses or dispositive motions, 27 etc.), litigation costs, effects of delay (for trial, appeal, execution of judgment, etc.), and 28 the likely individual exposures of each Settling Defendant. In addition, among other 1 things, Plaintiff’s claims against the Settling Defendants require Plaintiff to prove that he 2 was exposed to beryllium from each of the Settling Defendant’s products. However, with 3 the close of fact discovery, Plaintiff has acknowledged that it will be difficult to meet this 4 burden. 5 3. Each Settling Defendant, and Plaintiff, understands and acknowledges that 6 the effect and meaning of entry of the Order on this stipulation is that each settlement 7 shall be deemed to have been made in good faith within the meaning of California Code 8 of Civil Procedure § 877.6 and such Order shall, in accordance with California Code of 9 Civil Procedure § 877.6, bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further 10 claims against the Settling Defendants for equitable comparative contribution, or partial 11 or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault. (See, 12 Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6, sub. (c).) 13 It is so stipulated. 14 HUGO PARKER, LLP 15 16 Dated: March 22, 2022 By: /s/ James C. Parker 17 Bina Ghanaat Attorneys for Defendant 18 U.S. MINERALS, INC. 19 20 CHRISTENSEN HSU SIPES LLP 21 22 Dated: March 21, 2022 By: /s/ 23 Jennifer K. Stinnett Richard V. De Gruccio 24 Attorneys for Defendant U.S. MINERALS, INC. 25 26 27 28 1 TATRO TEKOSKY SADWICK, LLP 2 3 Dated: March 22, 2022 By: /s/ René P. Tatro 4 Juliet A. Markowitz Attorneys for Defendant 5 ARCONIC, INC. nka HOWMET AEROSPACE INC. 6 7 LAW OFFICES OF SHELDON J. WARREN 8 9 Dated: March 22, 2022 By: /s/ 10 Sheldon J. Warren Dani Rogers 11 Attorneys for Defendant MATERION BRUSH INC. 12 13 METZGER LAW GROUP 14 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 15 16 Dated: March 22, 2022 By: /s/ Raphael Metzger 17 Attorneys for Plaintiff Ronald Manning 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the settlements between plaintiff Ronald 3 || Dwayne Manning and each of the settling defendants, ARCONIC INC. (now known as 4 || Howmet Aerospace Inc.) MATERION BRUSH, INC., and U.S. MINERALS, INC. > || (collectively, the “Settling Defendants”) have been made in good faith within the 6 |) meaning of California Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all joint tortfeasors and co-obligors are hereby 8 || barred from asserting any claims (including but not limited to cross-claims and ? || counterclaims) against the Settling Defendants and each of them for equitable 10 || comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative 11 || negligence or comparative fault. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 || Dated: March 22, 2022 EF 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LE