Legal Question in Administrative Law in California

Re: Settling in good faith

He is entirely within his rights. When multiple defendants are sued and one settles, the others can demand that there be a hearing as to whether it is a good faith settlement and the burden is on you as you have more facts than he does as to whether based upon a reasonable analysis of the value of your case and the degree of the settling defendants responsibilty the settlement sum is reasonable. What is reasonable has a wide range because some of the permitted factors are costs of litigation, harm that might be done to the defendant's business while he concentrates on the lawsuit as opposed to the rest of his business, etc. And what ever sum he has settled for is subtracted from the final verdict so that you are not making a double recovery. Of course, if both figures are calculated exactly correctly, what is the point of the settlement? But the settlement is still worthwhile because you are getting some money up front, even though if the jury indirectly finds him liable for a greater sum you loss the difference. If it is joint and several liability, then it is a push--break even point. You need to check that his objection was timely filed.

Typing this up, I realize that if you can show damages distnictly caused by a single defendant, the non-settling defendant should logically not get credit because the jury is making him pay for only the amount the other defendant paid. So at trial you have to exceed the settlement amount to get anything if there is joint and several liability.