Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV08871, Date: 2024-08-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV08871    Hearing Date: August 2, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On March 3, 2020, Plaintiff Scott Lazar (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Odyssesus Investment Group, LLC, and Does 1 to 100. Plaintiff alleges he was injured while using an elevator on premises owned and/or controlled by Defendants.

On November 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint, substituting Continental Elevator Services, Inc. as Doe 1.

Defendant Continental Elevator Services, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves for a determination that a settlement with Plaintiff has been entered in good faith. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under section 877.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, “[a] determination by the court that [a] settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor . . . from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor . . . for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6 (c).) Any party to an action may move for an order determining whether a settlement between the plaintiff and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors was made in good faith. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(1).) “The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).)

Section 877.6 requires “that the courts review [settlement] agreements made under its aegis to insure that the settlements appropriately balance the . . . statute’s dual objectives” (i.e., providing an “equitable sharing of costs among the parties at fault” and encouraging parties to resolve their disputes by way of settlement.) (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 494 (hereafter, Tech-Bilt).) In Tech-Bilt, the court set forth the factors to consider when determining whether a settlement is made in good faith. The Tech-Bilt factors are: (1) a rough approximation of plaintiff’s total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (4) a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial; (5) the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants; and (6) the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of the non-settling defendants. (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 498-501.) Not every factor will apply in every case. (Dole Food Co., Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Shell Oil Co.) (2015) 242 Cal.4th 894, 909.)

“The party asserting the lack of good faith . . . [is] permitted to demonstrate, if he can, that the settlement is so far ‘out of the ballpark’ in relation to [the above] factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of [Section 877.6]. Such a demonstration would establish that the proposed settlement was not a ‘settlement made in good faith’ within the terms of section 877.6.” (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 499–500.)

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; rather, a bare bones motion setting forth the grounds of good faith and a declaration containing a brief background of the case is sufficient.  (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.)   

DISCUSSION

Defendant has agreed to settle with Plaintiff for $39,000, following a mediation. This is a negligence and premises liability case based on an elevator injury. Plaintiff was allegedly working for a company owned by Defendant Odyssesus Investment Group, LLC when he suffered a hand injury. Defendant has performed minor mechanical elevator maintenance services at the property.

Defendant asserts that the settlement was proportioned based on the fact that Defendant does not own or control the premises where the injury occurred and did not operate the subject elevator. Therefore, Defendant argues the $39,000 is beyond its potential liability. Instead, Defendant settled to avoid the cost and uncertainty of trial. Though Defendant has an insurance policy of $1,000,000, it argues that absent evidence that it was liable, the settlement amount is proper. Lastly, Defendant asserts this settlement was the product of cooperative decision-making, through a mediation, and thus, there was no collusion or fraud.

No opposition has been filed for this motion and all co-defendants have been served notice. Based on this information, the motion is granted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the motion for determination of good faith settlement is GRANTED.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.