2d at 135, 784 N.E.2d at 821; Dubina, 197 Ill. 2d at 191-92, 756 N.E.2d at 840.
Here, in response to the U-Haul entities’ opposition to Buffalo Grove’s motion for a good-
faith finding, Buffalo Grove submitted to the circuit court a copy of the “full and final release and
satisfaction agreement,” which detailed the terms to which Buffalo Grove and Cellini agreed. Thus,
we find that Buffalo Grove sufficiently made a preliminary showing of good faith, and the burden
of proof shifted to the U-Haul entities to show an absence of good faith by a preponderance of the
evidence. See Johnson, 203 Ill. 2d at 132, 784 N.E.2d at 820 (a settling party must show the
existence of alegallyvalid settlement agreement);see generallySnoddy v. Teepak, Inc., 198 Ill. App.
3d 966, 969, 556 N.E.2d 682, 684 (1990) (a preliminary showing of good faith was evidenced by the
settling parties’ “release” and the circuit court properly presumed that the settlement was valid).
Under the facts and the record before us, we find that the U-Haul entities failed to
demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, any showing of bad faith by the settling parties.
In a response brief opposing Buffalo Grove’s motion for a good-faith finding, the U-Haul entities
argued that the “[p]laintiffs will almost certainly seek between $10-$20 million in damages” at trial,
and thus, Buffalo Grove’s settlement with Cellini, the Forshalls and Diamond would be
“fundamentally unfair” to the U-Haul entities because they would be “paying in excess of their pro
rata share of fault, if any.” At the July 23, 2009 hearing on the motion for a good-faith finding, the
U-Haul entities argued that in light of our supreme court’s decision in Ready v. United/Goedecke
Services, Inc., which held that a settling tortfeasor was not a “defendant” considered in apportioning
fault and would not be listed on the verdict form, a nonsettling defendant such as the U-Haul entities
would be “left holding the bag.” See Ready v. United/Goedecke Services, Inc., 232 Ill. 2d 369, 905