28 Cal. App. 5th 862
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Marty and Marie Marteney sued Elementis and others for asbestos-related personal injury; after pretrial settlements, a 2013 jury awarded $1,525,000 and apportioned 3% fault to Elementis. Judge Kralik later found settlement credits reduced Elementis's economic liability to zero and entered a limited judgment for noneconomic damages against Elementis; Elementis appealed.
- Marty died while that appeal was pending. Marie and the adult children (respondents) filed a first amended complaint asserting wrongful death claims; respondents later dismissed Marie's wrongful-death claims and tried their claims against Elementis.
- After a 2016 jury verdict for respondents, the trial court entered judgment for wrongful death damages but reserved determination of offsets for prior settlements under Code Civ. Proc. § 877.
- The court later awarded Elementis a credit only for respondents’ $75,000 UCC settlement, not for Marty and Marie’s earlier settlements; Elementis moved to vacate the 2017 judgment as void, claiming the pending appeal/remittitur and finality of the 2013 judgment divested jurisdiction.
- The trial court denied the motion; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding (1) the filing and litigation of respondents’ separate wrongful death claims did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction while the earlier appeal was pending and (2) Elementis failed to prove Marty and Marie’s pretrial settlements bound respondents for § 877 credit purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2017 judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction because the 2013 judgment was on appeal/remittitur had issued | Respondents: wrongful-death claims are distinct and the trial court retained jurisdiction to accept their FAC and try those claims | Elementis: the appeal from the 2013 judgment and its finality deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to permit the FAC or further proceedings | Court: FAC asserted separate wrongful-death claims by heirs not embraced by the appeal; acceptance and adjudication did not strip subject-matter jurisdiction and any procedural irregularity was forfeited by Elementis’s participation |
| Whether respondents were bound by Marty and Marie’s pretrial settlements such that Elementis is entitled to § 877 credits for those settlements | Respondents: they were not parties to those settlements, did not participate or receive funds, so settlements do not reduce their recovery | Elementis: earlier settlements allocated funds to future wrongful-death claims (Judge Kralik found 20%) and thus should reduce Elementis’s liability in the heirs’ action | Court: Elementis failed to prove the settlements bound respondents; absent evidence of agency, receipt of funds, or other special circumstances, § 877 credits apply only for respondents’ own settlement with UCC |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in allocating settlement credits (application of § 877) | Respondents: credits should be limited to their UCC settlement | Elementis: credits should include pre-2013 settlements allocated to wrongful-death claims | Court: no abuse of discretion; credits limited to amounts applicable to respondents because Marty/Marie settlements did not bind respondents |
| Whether any trial-court error was an "excess of jurisdiction" voiding the judgment or a forfeited/harmless error | Respondents: any error was not jurisdictional; Elementis waived by answering, stipulating, and litigating | Elementis: allowing FAC was an excess-of-jurisdiction act that rendered later proceedings void | Court: any excess would be forfeited by Elementis’s prior consent and conduct; no basis to declare the 2017 judgment void |
Key Cases Cited
- Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal.4th 180 (stay under § 916 protects appellate jurisdiction and can render subsequent trial-court proceedings void if they affect matters embraced by the appeal)
- Bay Development, Ltd. v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.3d 1012 (§ 877 settlement reduces nonsettling defendants' liability to the settling plaintiff)
- Wilson v. John Crane, Inc., 81 Cal.App.4th 847 (settlements may credit only the same claim settled; heirs not signatory to settlements are generally not bound absent other indicia)
- Hackett v. John Crane, Inc., 98 Cal.App.4th 1233 (discusses allocation of settlement funds to future wrongful-death claims and the role of hold-harmless provisions)
- Andrews v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.2d 208 (distinguishes absolutely void judgments for lack of fundamental jurisdiction from voidable errors)
- Groom v. Bangs, 153 Cal. 456 (failure to timely object to irregular substitution of claims waives challenge on appeal)