O'Hearn

O'Hearn v. Hillcrest Gym & Fitness Center, Inc.

Good Law
115 Cal. App. 4th 491·9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 342
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 18, 2004B149573California3,828 words

Opinion

Opinion

Klein, J.

Defendant and appellant Hillcrest Gym and Fitness Center, Inc. (Hillcrest) and intervener and appellant Audubon Insurance Group (Audubon) (sometimes collectively referred to as Hillcrest) appeal a judgment in favor of plaintiff and respondent Michael O’Heam (O’Heam) following a jury trial on O’Heam’s claim for commercial appropriation of his likeness. (Civ. Code, § 3344, subd. (a).)

Hillcrest seeks, on its appeal from the judgment, appellate review of the trial court’s earlier order approving a good faith settlement between O’Heam and defendants and respondents Direct Marketing Enterprises, Inc. (Direct Marketing) and Redd Gardner (Gardner). This contention is not properly before us. A party wishing to challenge the merits of a good faith settlement determination must do so by way of a petition for writ of mandate as prescribed by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (e).) Hillcrest did not seek writ review of the order approving the good faith settlement and the order is not reviewable at this juncture.

We also address whether the trial court prejudicially erred in admitting evidence of settlement agreements which O’Heam obtained in other misappropriation cases…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.