Opinion
Civil Case No. 08-00012 Civil Case No. 11-00010
02-27-2012
MAEDA PACIFIC CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. GMP HAWAII, INC., et al., Defendants, AND DERIVATIVE AND OTHERWISE RELATED LITIGANTS. GMP HAWAII, INC., a Hawaii corporation d/b/a GMP ASSOCIATES, and OHIO PACIFIC TECH, INC., an Ohio corporation d/b/a GMP ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiffs, v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, a Massachusetts corporation, Defendant.
ORDER RE: RENEWED MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
JUDGMENT
Before the court is a Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Entry of Judgment ("the Renewed Motion") filed by Smithbridge Guam, Inc. ("Smithbridge"). See ECF No. 300. Smithbridge renews its motion for summary judgment for the dismissal of GMP's claim for contribution and a request for entry of judgment against GMP. See id. at 1. Also before the court is a Joinder in the Renewed Motion filed by Jorgensen and Close Associates, Inc. and U.S. Specialty Insurance Company (together, "J&CA"). See ECF No. 301. The court grants the joinder, and DENIES the Renewed Motion.
On August14, 2009, Smithbridge filed Alternative Motions for Summary Judgment, or Approval of Good-Faith Settlement, for the Dismissal of the Third-Party Complaint. See ECF No. 69. On February 23, 2010, the court found that, pursuant to Section 24606 of Title 7 of the Guam Code Annotated, there was a good-faith settlement between Smithbridge and Plaintiff Maeda Pacific Corporation ("Maeda"). See Order Re: Mtn. for Approval of Good-Faith Settlement, ECF No. 167 at 20.
On April 20, 2011, J&CA and Maeda filed a Joint Motion for Approval of Good-Faith Settlement. See ECF No. 208. On September 23, 2011, the court granted Joint Motion and found that there was a good-faith settlement between J&CA and Maeda. See ECF No. 288.
Under Section 24606, "[a] determination by the court that [a] settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault." 7 GUAM CODE ANN. § 24606(c). Thus, GMP is barred from bringing claims for contribution against Smithbridge and J&CA.
The Renewed Motion does not present a justiciable issue as it was disposed of with the court's findings of good-faith settlements. Accordingly, the court DENIES the Renewed Motion.
If for some reason the findings of good faith are revoked or rescinded, the parties may raise the issues presented in the Renewed Motion at that time.
SO ORDERED.
Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood
Chief Judge