Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV03903, Date: 2025-04-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV03903 Hearing Date: April 30, 2025 Dept: 55
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement (CCP
877.6)
AMC’s Motion for
Determination of Good Faith Settlement is granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Ariel Hirsch
filed this action against Los Feliz Bliss, LLC
(LFB), Apartment Management Consultants, LLC (AMC), and DFT, Inc., dba Cannon
Management (Cannon) (collectively “Defendants”), alleging violations of Los Angeles tenant protections.
Plaintiff alleged that AMC acted as the property manager of the
subject apartment building from December 2018, when defendant LFB purchased the
property, until September 2022, when Cannon replaced AMC as the property
manager. Plaintiff moved into the unit in July 2019. Plaintiff alleges that in
April 2019, her brother, Alex Hirsch, and Surender Singh, AMC’s on-site
property manager, entered into a lease addendum whereby he would prepay $28,966
to cover the full rent for the unit through July 31, 2021. This reflected a
discount monthly rent of $1,206.92, as opposed to the then monthly rent of
$1,703.31. In December 2019, Alex Hirsch and Singh entered into a second
purported addendum whereby he would pay $11,820 to cover the rent for another
year, through July 31, 2022. This equates to $985.00 per month.
AMC contends that Singh was not authorized to make these
deals and that they constituted fraud against LFB and AMC. While Defendants
credited Plaintiff with the payments made to Singh, they did not accept the
validity of the purported lease addenda and sought the amount of rent due under
the original lease. In May 2022, AMC served Plaintiff with a three-day notice
to pay rent or quit. Plaintiff claims that notice was wrongful because it did
not honor the rent discount established by the purported addenda. Each of
Plaintiff’s claims contends that Defendants were obligated to honor the Singh
lease addenda, which purported to modify the rent owed.
The causes of action are: Violation of Los Angeles Tenant
Anti-Harassment Ordinance (Los Angeles Municipal Code Article 5.3); (2)
Violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 151.04/151.10; (3) Violation of
Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 151.04/151.10; (4) Violation of Los Angeles
Municipal Code Sections 151.04/151.10; and (5) Violation of Los Angeles
Municipal Code Section 8.52.130.
On February 28, 2025,
Plaintiff and AMC entered into a settlement agreement.
On March 25, 2025, AMC filed
a Motion for Determination of Good Faith
Settlement. The motion is unopposed.
LEGAL STANDARD
When only some of multiple defendants alleged to be jointly
liable settle a case, the settling parties may apply to the court for a
determination of good faith settlement. CCP § 877.6(a). A determination of good
faith settlement “shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any
further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable
comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on
comparative negligence or comparative fault.” CCP § 877.6(c).
In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates
(1985) 38 Cal.3d 488 (Tech-Bilt), the California Supreme Court set forth
a non-exclusive list of factors to consider in making this determination. “The
intent and policies underlying section 877.6 require that a number of factors
be taken into account including [1] a rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total
recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability, [2] the amount paid in
settlement, [3] the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, and [4]
a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he
were found liable after a trial. Other relevant considerations include the [5] financial
conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants, as well as [6]
the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the
interests of nonsettling defendants. Finally, practical considerations
obviously require that the evaluation be made on the basis of information
available at the time of settlement.” Id. at p. 499 (citations omitted).
The opposing party bears the burden “to show the settlement
amount was ‘so far “out of the ballpark” in relation to’ the Tech-Bilt
factors that the settlement was inconsistent with the equitable objectives of
section 877.6.” Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194
Cal.App.4th 939, 967 (Cahill); accord CCP § 877.6(d) (“The party
asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue”).
Because the opposing party bears the burden of proof, the moving party is “not
compelled to make a showing as to their proportionate liability” when bringing
its motion. Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38
Cal.App.4th 1337, 1350, fn. 6 (Mattco). But after an opposing party “attack[s]
the settlement as lacking in good faith,” the moving party must “file
counter-affidavits § 877.6, subd. (b) to make an evidentiary showing that the
settlement was ‘in the ballpark.’” Ibid.
To prevail over an opposing party, “[s]ection 877.6 and Tech-Bilt
require an evidentiary showing, through expert declarations or other means,
that the proposed settlement is within the reasonable range permitted by the
criterion of good faith.” Mattco, supra, at p. 1351. A
determination of good faith requires “substantial evidence,” which “is not
synonymous with ‘any’ evidence; rather, it means the evidence must be of
ponderable legal significance, reasonable, credible, and of solid value.” Cahill,
supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 958. Finally, “the determination whether the
settlement was in good faith must be based on competent, admissible evidence.” Brehm
Communities v. Superior Court (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 730, 736.
ANALYSIS
An unopposed motion for determination of good faith of
settlement need not contain a full and complete discussion of the Tech-Bilt
factors by declaration or affidavit; instead, a “barebones motion which sets
forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a
brief background of the case is sufficient.” City of Grand Terrace v.
Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.
The present motion is unopposed, and there are no other
filings objecting to the settlement at issue. After mediation and settlement
conferences, AMC and Plaintiff agreed to settle. The settlement provides for
Plaintiff to accept payment from AMC of $91,500 in exchange for Plaintiff’s
dismissal of AMC, with prejudice, as a full and final resolution of Plaintiff’s
claims against AMC. Plaintiff and AMC agree to waive their attorney fees and
costs as between them. AMC does not admit liability. Plaintiff agrees to waive
the protection of Civil Code §1542. Finally, Plaintiff agrees to cooperate with
AMC’s request for a good faith settlement determination.
The motion discusses the Tech-Bilt factors. AMC
argues that its liability is limited to conduct before LFB replaced it with
Cannon in September 2022. Additionally, AMC discusses its potential liability,
which it calculates to be between $20,000 and $30,000 in statutory damages and
reasonable attorney’s fees. The settlement amount is within the ballpark of a
reasonable settlement, particularly when recognizing that a settlor should pay
less in settlement than if it were found liable after trial. Therefore, even if
AMC underestimated its liability somewhat, the settlement is still reasonable. Finally,
AMC argues that there was no collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed at
injuring the interest of the non-settling Co-Defendants. Greenleaf Decl. ¶ 8.
Because the motion is unopposed and the burden is on any
party opposing the motion to show lack of good faith, the Court grants the
motion.
CONCLUSION
AMC’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement
is granted.