STIPULATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SECTIONS 877, et seq.

SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between plaintiff, PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, defendant BAY AREA MECHANICAL AND ENGINEERING, INC., defendant JACK BERZIN, defendant BROAN-NUTONE, L.L.C. and defendant A.O. SMITH, CORP. as follows:

1. BAY AREA MECHANICAL AND ENGINEERING, INC. and JACK BERZIN are defendants in this action.

2. BAY AREA MECHANICAL AND ENGINEERING, INC. and JACK BERZIN have settled with plaintiff for the sum of $1,000,000.00, the available policy limits. Rather than incur the burden, expense, and delay in seeking a judicial determination of good faith settlement pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6, the undersigned parties agree that the settlement of BAY AREA MECHANICAL AND ENGINEERING, INC. and JACK BERZIN with plaintiff is in good faith under these code sections.

3. California Code of Civil Procedure section 877 et seq., rather than federal common law, governs the determination of whether the settlement entered into by and between Plaintiff, BAME and JACK BERZIN is in good faith. Where, as here, "a district court sits in diversity, or hears state law claims based on supplemental jurisdiction, the court applies state substantive law to the state law claims." (Mason & Dixon Intermodal, Inc. v. Lapmaster Int'l, 632 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2011); Galam v. Carmel (In re Larry's Apartment), 249 F.3d 832, 837 (9th Cir. 2001) ("It is well established that [u]nder the Erie doctrine, federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law" (internal quotations and citations omitted).) "California Code of Civil Procedure section 877 constitutes state substantive law." Mason & Dixon Intermodal, Inc., 632 F.3d at 1060 (holding the district court correctly applied California Code of Civil Procedure section 877 as state substantive law to resolve motion to dismiss pursuant to good faith settlement); Fed. Savings & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Butler, 904 F.2d 505, 511 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that California Code of Civil Procedure section 877 constitutes substantive law); See also Federal Savings and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Butler, 904 F.2d 505, 511 (9th Cir. 1990) and Yanez v. United States, 989 F.2d 323, 327-28 (9th Cir. 1993.)

4. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6, all further Claims against Defendants BAY AREA MECHANICAL AND ENGINEERING, INC. and/or JACK BERZIN for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity shall be barred.

5. This Stipulation may be presented with separate signature pages and by facsimile.

ORDER

GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN AND THE PARTIES HAVING STIPULATED TO THE SAME, the Court finds that the above-stated STIPULATION is sanctioned by the Court and shall be and now is the Order of the Court. The Settlement Agreement between plaintiff PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY and defendants BAY AREA MECHANICAL AND ENGINEERING, INC. and JACK BERZIN is hereby deemed to be a good faith settlement within the meaning and effect of California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 877 and 877.6. Any further claims of any other joint tortfeasors or co-obligors relating to the subject matter of this lawsuit against BAY AREA MECHANICAL AND ENGINEERING, INC. and/or JACK BERZIN for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault are hereby barred and dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 877.6, subdivision (c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.