Association of Apartment Owners of Hokua At 1288 Ala Moana v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc. et al, No. 1:2008cv00463 - Document 110 (D. Haw. 2009)
Court Description: Defendant Brett Hill Management Group, LLC's FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT 94 DEFENDANT BRETT HILL MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC'S PETITION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT. Signed by JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG on 8/20/2009. [Findings & Recommendations follows hearing on Defendant Brett Hill Management Group, LLCs Petition for Good Faith Settlement, docket entry no. 94 held 8/7/2009; Minutes-docket entry no. 109 ] (afc) CERTIF ICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Association of Apartment Owners of Hokua At 1288 Ala Moana v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc. et al Doc. 110 TOM PETRUS & MILLER, LLLC MICHAEL D. TOM 1655-0 Tel # 808.792.5802 mtom@tpm-hawaii.com MARK K. MORITA 6740-0 Tel # 808.792.5822 mmorita@tpm-hawaii.com 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 650 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Facsimile No. 808.792.5809 Attorneys for Defendant BRETT HILL MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF THE HOKUA @ 1288 ALA MOANA; ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) WATTS WATER TECHNOLOGIES, ) INC. aka WATTS REGULATOR ) COMPANY; MURRAY ) CORPORATION; BENJAMIN WOO ) ARCHITECTS, LLC; NOTKIN ) HAWAII, INC.; ALBERT C. ) KOBAYASHI, INC.; HOKUA ) DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC; ) DORVIN D. LEIS CO., INC.; ) OETIKER CORPORATION, aka ) OETIKER AMERIKA; BRETT HILL ) MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC; JOHN ) CIVIL NO. CV08-00463 HG KSC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT DEFENDANT BRETT HILL MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC’S PETITION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT Date: August 7, 2009 Time: 9:30 a.m. Magistrate Judge Kevin S.C. Chang Dockets.Justia.com and JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 1-10; and DOE ASSOCIATIONS 1-10, ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT DEFENDANT BRETT HILL MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC’S PETITION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT Before the Court is Defendant BRETT HILL MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC’s (“BHM”) Petition for determination by this Court that the settlement between the BHM and Plaintiff ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF THE HOKUA @ 1288 ALA MOANA (“Plaintiff”) is in good faith in accordance with Hawaii Revised Statutes § 663-15.5, as amended, and filed on July 2, 2009. This matter came on for hearing on August 7, 2009. Glenn K. Sato, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff; Mark K. Morita, Esq., appeared on behalf of BHM; Kenneth T. Okamoto and Terence S. Yamamoto appeared on behalf of Defendant WATTS RADIANT, INC. and WATTS WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. aka WATTS REGULATOR COMPANY; Bruce M. Ito, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendant BENJAMIN WOO ARCHITECTS, LLC.; Jane Kwan, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendant NOTKIN HAWAII, INC.; Amanda Jane Weston, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendant OETIKER CORPORATION aka OETIKER 2 AMERIKA; and Rhonda L. Ching, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendant MURRAY CORPORATION. After careful consideration of the Petition, the Position Statements, the Memorandums in Opposition filed herein and the Joinders filed thereto, and the arguments of counsel, the Court HEREBY FINDS and RECOMMENDS that the district court GRANT the Petition. BHM and Plaintiff entered into a confidential settlement agreement. BHM now seeks a determination that the confidential settlement agreement was entered in good faith. Under Hawaii law, a party must petition the court for a hearing on the issue of whether a settlement was made in good faith and must serve notice to all known joint tortfeasors or co-obligors. See Haw. Rev. Stat § 663-15.5(d). The petition shall indicate the settling parties and, except for a settlement that includes a confidentiality agreement regarding the case or the terms of the settlement, the basis, terms, and settlement amount.” Id. Any non-settling party may file an objection and such party bears the burden of proving a lack of good faith. See id. In Troyer v. Adams, the Hawaii Supreme Court adopted a “totality of the circumstances” approach for the § 663-15.5 analysis of whether a settlement was made in good faith. See 102 Hawai’i 399, 425, 77 P.3d 83, 109 (2003). The court noted that the statute’s legislative intent focused more on “encouraging settlements than ensuring the equitable apportionment of liability.” See id. at 426, 77 P.3d at 3 110. The court therefore rejected California’s process of conducting “mini-trials” to determine the parties’ probable liability before approving a settlement. See id. at 426-27, 77 P.3d at 110-11. The supreme court stated, the trial court may consider the following factors to the extent that they are known at the time of settlement: (1) the type of case and difficulty of proof at trial, e.g., rear-end motor vehicle collision, medical malpractice, product liability, etc.; (2) the realistic approximation of total damages that the plaintiff seeks; (3) the strength of the plaintiff’s claim and the realistic likelihood of his or her success at trial; (4) the predicted expense of litigation; (5) the relative degree of fault of the settling tortfeasors; (6) the amount of consideration paid to settle the claims; (7) the insurance policy limits and solvency of the joint tortfeasors;(8) the relationship among the parties and whether it is conducive to collusion or wrongful conduct; and (9) any other evidence that the settlement is aimed at injuring the interests of a non-settling tortfeasor or motivated by other wrongful purpose. Id. at 427, 77 P.3d at 111. These factors are not exhaustive; the court may consider any other relevant factor. See id. In the instant case, the Court finds that BHM and Plaintiff entered into the settlement in good faith. After considering the factors set for in Troyer, the totality of circumstances, and after reviewing the essential terms of the settlement, the Court finds that the settlement was reached in good faith for the purposes of HRS § 663-15.5. 4 Thus, the Court recommends that the district court GRANT the Petition. The Court notes that in the event the district court adopts this Findings and Recommendation, the finding of good faith settlement shall result in the dismissal of all claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party claims against BHM pursuant to HRS § 663-15.5(d).1 CONCLUSION In accordance with the foregoing, this Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS that the district court GRANT BHM’s Petition filed July 2, 2009. 1 HRS § 663-15.5(d) provides: (d) A determination by the court that a settlement was made in good faith shall: (1) Bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor, except those based on a written indemnity agreement; and (2) Result in a dismissal of all cross-claims filed against the settling joint tortfeasor or co-obligor, except those based on a written indemnity agreement. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-15.5(d). 5 IT IS SO FOUND AND RECOMMENDED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, August 20, 2009. _____________________________ Kevin S.C. Chang United States Magistrate Judge Association of Apartment Owners of the Hokua @ 1288 Ala Moana v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc. aka Watts Regulator Company, et al., Civil No. CV08-00463 HG KSC; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT DEFENDANT BRETT HILL MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC’S PETITION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
