78 Cal.App.5th 568
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- In 2018 a cryogenic storage tank manufactured by Chart failed at Pacific Fertility Center (PFC), threatening patients’ reproductive material and spawning hundreds of individual claims across federal court, state court, and arbitration.
- Claims against Chart proceeded largely in federal court (including bellwether trials that returned a verdict against Chart); many claims against PFC, Pacific MSO, Prelude and individual clinicians proceeded in arbitration and state court.
- After extensive discovery, testing, mediation, and additional trials, the PFC-related defendants (the settling defendants) reached settlements conditioned on the trial court’s finding the settlements were made in good faith under Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6.
- The trial court granted the settling defendants’ § 877.6 motion, declared the settlements in good faith, and dismissed cross-complaints for indemnity/contribution against them.
- Chart (a nonsettling defendant) filed a writ petition challenging the good-faith determination, which this court denied; two days after the writ denial Chart then filed an appeal from the good-faith order.
- The Court of Appeal (Division One) concluded that review of a § 877.6 good-faith determination is available only by a timely writ of mandate under § 877.6(e), reaffirmed prior Division precedent, and dismissed Chart’s appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Chart) | Defendant's Argument (Settling defendants) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court’s § 877.6 good-faith settlement determination may be reviewed on appeal or only by writ of mandate under § 877.6(e) | § 877.6 uses “may” and does not expressly preclude appeals; prior decisions permit postjudgment appeals in some circumstances | § 877.6(e) creates a specific, expedited writ procedure intended to provide early finality and thus is the exclusive means of review | The writ-of-mandate procedure in § 877.6(e) is the sole means to obtain appellate review of a good-faith settlement determination; appeal dismissed |
| Whether summary denial of a § 877.6 writ petition deprives a party of effective appellate review | A summary denial of the writ left Chart without meaningful review of the good-faith ruling | Writ review is discretionary but must be exercised within reasonable bounds; a timely, procedurally sufficient writ petition must be judged on its merits and a summary denial is a merits decision | Discretionary writ review can be effective; summary denial (when the petition is procedurally and substantively considered) constitutes denial on the merits and does not render the writ remedy inadequate |
| Whether the good-faith order was separately appealable as a final judgment (novel interlocutory/finality question) | (Chart did not press a clear final-judgment appealability argument) | (Settling defendants challenged appealability) | The court questioned appealability but did not decide the final-judgment issue because it concluded writ review is exclusive under § 877.6 |
Key Cases Cited
- Housing Group v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.App.4th 549 (reaffirmed that good-faith settlement determinations are reviewable only by writ under § 877.6)
- Main Fiber Products, Inc. v. Morgan & Franz Ins. Agency, 73 Cal.App.4th 1130 (statutory purpose and history support exclusive, pretrial writ review to secure early finality)
- O’Hearn v. Hillcrest Gym & Fitness Ctr., 115 Cal.App.4th 491 (agrees that early writ review promotes settlements and finality)
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Andreini & Co., 81 Cal.App.4th 1413 (held that writ availability did not necessarily preclude postjudgment appeal; discussed predecessor legislative history)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co., 194 Cal.App.4th 939 (represents authority allowing appeal in some postjudgment circumstances)
- Wilshire Ins. Co. v. Tuff Boy Holding, Inc., 86 Cal.App.4th 627 (another case recognizing possible appellate review after judgment)
- Powers v. City of Richmond, 10 Cal.4th 85 (appellate courts must exercise writ-discretion within reasonable bounds)
- Leone v. Medical Board, 22 Cal.4th 660 (summary denial of a writ petition, when writ is the exclusive remedy, is necessarily a merits decision)
- Frisk v. Superior Court, 200 Cal.App.4th 402 (discusses standards for summary disposition of writ petitions)