- Money judgment was rendered jointly against Plaintiff and Defendant; and
- Plaintiff discharged the joint judgment, or paid more than it’s pro rata share.
The right to contribution is statutorily created in California, and is based on principles of equity finding an implied contract between joint tortfeasors. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 875; Morgan Creek Residential v. Kemp, 153 Cal. App. 4th 675, 684 (2007).
“The pro rata share of each tortfeasor judgment debtor shall be determined by dividing the entire judgment equally among all of them.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 876(a); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1432 (“Except as provided in Section 877 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party to a joint, or joint and several obligation, who satisfies more than his share of the claim against all, may require a proportionate contribution from all the parties joined with him.”).
For procedures relating to motions for findings of good faith settlements and motions for contribution, see California Code of Civil Procedure sections 875, et seq.
CALIFORNIA STATE COURTS
Supreme Court of California: Richards v. Owens-Ill., Inc., 14 Cal. 4th 985, 993 (1997).
California 1st Dist.: Lamberton v. Rhodes-Jamieson, 199 Cal. App. 3d 748, 751 n.2 (1988).
California 2d Dist.: Graphic Arts Mut. Ins. Co. v. Time Travel Int’l, Inc., 126 Cal. App. 4th 405, 415 (2005).
California 3d Dist.: Morgan Creek Residential v. Kemp, 153 Cal. App. 4th 675, 684 (2007).
California 4th Dist.: Thomas v. Duggins Construction Co., Inc., 139 Cal. App. 4th 1105, 1111 (2006).
California 5th Dist.: Burton v. Gardner Motors, Inc., 117 Cal. App. 3d 426, 433 (1981); E. B. Wills Co. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal. App. 3d 650, 653 (1976).
California 6th Dist.: None.
CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURTS
United States Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit: Mason and Dixon Intermodal, Inc. v. Lapmaster Int’l LLC, 632 F.3d 1056, 1064 (9th Cir. 2011).
Central District: Kirschner v. Blixseth, No. CV 11-08283 GAF (SPx), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183275, at *87-88 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2012).
Eastern District: United States v. Lyon, No. CV F 07-0491 LJO GSA, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94329, at *22 (E.D. Cal. 2007).
Northern District: Sullins v. Exxon/Mobil Corp., 729 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1138 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
Southern District: Michell v. United States, No. 09cv0387 BTM(JMA), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99942, at *7-8 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2011).