Manning v. Arconic Inc.

Opinion

Jennifer K. Stinnett, Esq. [Bar No. 228209] Richard V. De Gruccio, Esq. [Bar No. 214679] 2485 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 315 Sacramento, CA 95833 Telephone: (916) 443-6909 Facsimile: (916) 313-0645 Email: jennifer@chs.law richard@chs.law

James C. Parker [Bar No. 106149] Bina Ghanaat [Bar No. 264826] 240 Stockton Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 808-0300 Facsimile: (415) 808-0333 Email: service@HUGOPARKER.com Attorneys for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD DWAYNE MANNING, No. 2:19-CV-02202-MCE-DMC

Plaintiff, Assigned to the Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr., Ctrm. 7 vs.

ARCONIC INC., formerly known as Alcoa, a Delaware corporation; STIPULATION AS TO GOOD FAITH OF MATERION BRUSH INC., formerly SETTLEMENTS BETWEEN DEFENDANTS known as Brush Wellman, Inc., an Ohio AND PLAINTIFF; ORDER THEREON corporation; U.S. MINERALS, INC., a Delaware corporation; WABCO HOLDINGS, INC., as successor-in- interest to Meritor Wabco Vehicle Control Systems, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 120, INCLUSIVE, Defendants. By and through their undersigned counsel of record, defendants ARCONIC INC. (now known as Howmet Aerospace Inc.), MATERION BRUSH INC., and U.S. MINERALS, INC. (individually, “Settling Defendant” and collectively the “Settling Defendants”) and plaintiff Ronald Dwayne Manning (“Plaintiff”) (together, the “Parties”), hereby stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, the Settling Defendants are the only active defendants in this personal injury matter (the “Action”); WHEREAS, each Settling Defendant has settled with Plaintiff RONALD DWAYNE MANNING (“Plaintiff”); WHEREAS, through their counsel, each Settling Defendant has shared with all Settling Defendants the material terms of its settlement with Plaintiff or through this stipulation hereby waives any right it may have to learn such terms; and WHEREAS, each Party has had the opportunity to consult with his or its counsel concerning the settlements between Plaintiff and each Settling Defendant; NOW, THEREFORE, subject to the Court’s approval, the Parties stipulate as follows: 1. In lieu of each Settling Defendant, whether alone or together with Plaintiff, filing a motion or application and requesting entry of an order finding its settlement of the Action in “good faith” within the meaning of California Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6, each Settling Defendant and Plaintiff hereby stipulates that each other Settling Defendant’s settlement is in “good faith.” The Parties further stipulate and request that the Court enter an order finding that each settlement is in good faith within the meaning of California Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6 2. That is, the Parties have taken into account all facts and circumstances to determine that each Settling Defendant’s settlement allocates within a “reasonable range” its purported share of liability for Plaintiff’s claimed injuries. Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc., 38 Cal. 3d 488, 499 (1985). This assessment included, but is not limited to, Plaintiff’s and each Settling Defendants’ assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, risks of their respective cases (i.e., Plaintiff’s likelihood of prevailing and at what amount; the likelihood of successful affirmative defenses or dispositive motions, etc.), litigation costs, effects of delay (for trial, appeal, execution of judgment, etc.), and the likely individual exposures of each Settling Defendant. In addition, among other things, Plaintiff’s claims against the Settling Defendants require Plaintiff to prove that he was exposed to beryllium from each of the Settling Defendant’s products. However, with the close of fact discovery, Plaintiff has acknowledged that it will be difficult to meet this burden. 3. Each Settling Defendant, and Plaintiff, understands and acknowledges that the effect and meaning of entry of the Order on this stipulation is that each settlement shall be deemed to have been made in good faith within the meaning of California Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6 and such Order shall, in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6, bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the Settling Defendants for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault. (See, Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6, sub. (c).) It is so stipulated.

Dated: March 22, 2022 By: /s/ James C. Parker Bina Ghanaat Attorneys for Defendant U.S. MINERALS, INC.

CHRISTENSEN HSU SIPES LLP

Dated: March 21, 2022 By: /s/ Jennifer K. Stinnett Richard V. De Gruccio Attorneys for Defendant U.S. MINERALS, INC.

TATRO TEKOSKY SADWICK, LLP

Dated: March 22, 2022 By: /s/ René P. Tatro Juliet A. Markowitz Attorneys for Defendant ARCONIC, INC. nka HOWMET AEROSPACE INC.

LAW OFFICES OF SHELDON J. WARREN

Dated: March 22, 2022 By: /s/ Sheldon J. Warren Dani Rogers Attorneys for Defendant MATERION BRUSH INC.

METZGER LAW GROUP A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

Dated: March 22, 2022 By: /s/ Raphael Metzger Attorneys for Plaintiff Ronald Manning

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the settlements between plaintiff Ronald Dwayne Manning and each of the settling defendants, ARCONIC INC. (now known as Howmet Aerospace Inc.) MATERION BRUSH, INC., and U.S. MINERALS, INC. > || (collectively, the “Settling Defendants”) have been made in good faith within the ) meaning of California Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all joint tortfeasors and co-obligors are hereby barred from asserting any claims (including but not limited to cross-claims and ? || counterclaims) against the Settling Defendants and each of them for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault. Dated: March 22, 2022 EF

LE