Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 20STCV40634, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV40634    Hearing Date: November 8, 2023    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

Cross-Defendant Veronica Soto (Soto) moves for a determination that a settlement 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

Cross-Defendant Veronica Soto has entered into a settlement with Cross-Complainants Natalie Bebejian and Shant Bebejian for $10,000 in exchange for a full release of all the claims of Cross-Complainants against Soto resulting from the motor vehicle accident on October 31, 2019.

This case arises out of a three-vehicle accident. (Gonter Decl. ¶ 2.) On October 31, 2019, Plaintiff Douglas Means was traveling eastbound on Devonshire Street in Northridge, California. Soto was driving westbound on Devonshire Street. Defendant and Cross-Complainant Natalie Bebejian was traveling northbound on Woodley Avenue. At the intersection of Woodley Avenue and Devonshire Street, Cross-Complainant alleges the traffic signal changed from green to black, which then caused a collision between the three cars. Soto and Plaintiff Means contend they entered the intersection on a green light. (Id. ¶ 6–7.) Natalie Bebejian and Shant Bebejian filed a cross complaint on January 22, 2021 against Douglas Means, Veronica Soto, City of Los Angeles, and Does 1 to 100.

Soto contends the amount of the settlement is fair given the lack of evidence that Soto was at fault. $10,000 will be paid by Soto’s insurance company. Natalie Bebejian demonstrated she paid $4,497 in medical bills. (Id. ¶ 12.) Cross-Complainant Shant Bebejian, Natalie’s husband, alleged loss of consortium due to the accident but did receive medical or psychological care. He alleges his wife’s injuries caused some strain of their marriage. (Id.) Soto has paid this settlement in lieu of prolonging litigation and carried the statutory minimum liability coverage. Therefore, the settlement appears to be a rough approximate of Soto’s liability and Cross-Complainant’s recovery. Additionally, the settlement arose out of private mediation between the drivers. As a result, it does not appear there was collusion or fraud to injure non-settling defendants. As the settlement agreement notes, the remaining claim on the cross-complaint is against City of Los Angeles.

Therefore, Soto has satisfied her burden that the settlement was entered in good faith.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

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