DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC21596771·sf·Civil·Real Property
Hearing 7 months agoDENIED without prejudice.

MHYF HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY ET AL VS. CHRIS V. KELLY ET AL

Notice Of Joinder In Defendant Ph Architects, Llcs Motion For Determination Of Good Faith Settlement

Hearing date
Jan 15, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$527,473

Parties

PlaintiffMHYF HOLDINGS, LLC
PlaintiffMATTHEW HUMPHREY
PlaintiffYING FU
DefendantCHRIS V. KELLY
DefendantPH ARCHITECTS, LLC

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC21596771 - January 15, 2026 Hearing date: January 15, 2026 Case number: CGC21596771 Case title: MHYF HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY ET AL VS. CHRIS V. KELLY ET AL Case Number: | | CGC21596771 | Case Title: | | MHYF HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY ET AL VS. CHRIS V. KELLY ET AL |

Court Date: | | 2026-01-15 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Joinder In Defendant Ph Architects, Llcs Motion For Determination Of Good Faith Settlement | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for January 15, 2026. Line 1.2. PLAINTIFF MHYF HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, MATTHEW HUMPHREY, YING FU Notice Of Joinder In Defendant Ph Architects, Llcs Motion For Determination Of Good Faith Settlement is DENIED without prejudice.

The Court was not provided with sufficient information to conduct the analysis under Tech-Built, e.g. a rough approximation of plaintiff's total recovery, to determine whether the settlement amount is grossly disproportionate to the settllor's fair share of anticipated damages. See Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates, (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488; Abbott Ford, Inc. v. Superior Court, (1987) 43 Cal. 3d 858.

The Court further notes that no information was provided for the Court to determine now (or at trial) what the allocation of the settlement amount was. This case involves allegations against multiple joint tortfeasors that are not similarly situated and whose potential liability does not completely overlap. While the moving parties (see joinder) supply the Court with a very specific number ($527,473) in claimed damages to Plaintiffs for the services that PH provided for the ground-up remodel at the Property, they provide no explanation as to how Plaintiff arrived at this number, i.e. which damages are included. =(501/CFH)

Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required.

Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not notified, and the opposing party does not appear. | |

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share