for a disproportionate amount of fault if Buffalo Grove’s settlement with Cellini, the Forshalls and
Diamond were approved.
Subsequently, on that same day, July23, 2009, after a hearing on the motion, the circuit court
granted Buffalo Grove’s motion for a good-faith finding that the settlement agreement entered into
between Buffalo Grove and the three plaintiffs–Cellini, the Forshalls and Diamond–was made in
good-faith within the meaning of the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act (740 ILCS 100/1 et seq.
(West 2006)). The circuit court also dismissed with prejudice all counterclaims for contribution
against Buffalo Grove, including the May 13, 2009 counterclaims for contribution filed by the U-
Haul entities against Buffalo Grove in each of the three lawsuits brought by Cellini, the Forshalls
and Diamond. The circuit court said:
“[O]ver [the U-Haul entities’] objections and over Wheeling’s
objections, really there’s simply no basis in the record for anything
other than a good faith finding at this point.
And I understand the conundrum facing the defendants as a
former defense counsel. And you’re preaching to the choir here in
many other circumstances anyway, but this has to wait another day.
The motion [for a good-faith finding] is granted.”
The circuit court further dismissed with prejudice “all counterclaims and [t]hird-[p]arty[c]omplaints
currently pending against [Buffalo Grove]” and found, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (210
Ill. 2d R. 304(a)), that “there exists no just reason to delay enforcement or appeal of the [July 23,