Pierson v. M.B. Sturgis, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL PIERSON, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01778 JLT EPG 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DENYING 13 v. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND AND APPROVING DEFENDANT 14 M.B. STURGIS, INC., et al., WORTHINGTON’S MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH 15 Defendants. SETTLEMENT, AND

16 (Docs. 21, 65, and 84)

17 18 Michael Pierson and Courtney Pierson bring this action against Defendants, including 19 Enerco Group, Inc. and Worthington Industries, Inc.1, for negligence and strict liability in the 20 death of Katie Pierson following a propane gas explosion. Plaintiffs initiated this action in the Los 21 Angeles County Superior Court and seek a remand of the matter to state Court following 22 Defendants’ removal to the federal court.2 (Doc. 21.) While the motion was pending, Plaintiffs 23 and Defendant Worthington entered into a settlement agreement, and Worthington moved for a 24 determination that “the settlement meets the standards of good faith within the meaning of 25 California Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6.” (Doc. 65 at 2.) 26 1 Defendants report that late last year, Worthington’s name changed to “Worthington Enterprises, Inc.” 27 (Doc. 65-2 at 1, Warren Decl. ¶ 1.) 2 Defendants removed the action to the Central District of California, which transferred the matter to this 28 Court. (Docs. 43, 44.) 1 The magistrate judge found the removal to the federal court by Enerco was timely. (Doc. 2 85 at 5-7.) In addition, the magistrate judge found “Enerco met its burden in establishing 3 complete diversity between the parties.” (Id. at 9; see also id. at 7-9.) Finally, the magistrate 4 judge rejected Plaintiffs’ contention that Enerco waived its right to removal by previously filing a 5 motion to transfer venue, “because the case was not removable when the motion was filed.” (Id. 6 at 10.) Thus, the magistrate judge recommended the motion to remand be denied. (Id. at 14.) 7 Evaluating Plaintiffs’ settlement with Worthington, the magistrate judge found the 8 “settlement was in good faith.” (Doc. 84 at 14.) The magistrate judge observed, “It is undisputed 9 that the settlement was the result of arms-length negotiations between Plaintiffs and 10 Worthington.” (Id.) The magistrate judge also observed: “The evidence offered in support of the 11 conclusion that Worthington’s liability is minimal or non- existent, particularly the declaration of 12 Malcolm Warren relating to post-accident testing and the deposition testimony of Michael 13 Pierson, is substantial and persuasive.” (Id.) Furthermore, the magistrate judge observed that 14 “Enerco admits that post-accident testing revealed a small propane leak between the Enerco 15 heater and the connecting hose.” (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the motion 16 for determination of a good faith settlement be granted. (Id.) 17 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that 18 any objections were to be filed within 30 days. (Id. at 14.) The Court advised the parties hat the 19 “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” 20 (Id. at 14-15, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) No objections 21 were filed, and the time to do so has passed. 22 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court conducted a de novo review of this case. 23 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 24 are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 25 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 19, 2024 (Doc. 84) are 26 ADOPTED in full. 27 2. Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (Doc. 21) is DENIED. 28 /// 1 3. Defendant Worthington’s motion for determination of good faith settlement (Doc. 65) is 2 GRANTED. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: _ December 30, 2024 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28