Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV27941, Date: 2024-09-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV27941    Hearing Date: September 10, 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 August 26, 2022, Plaintiff Myron Mackey (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants The Belasco, Belasco Theatre Entertainment, Inc., Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., Trap Karaoke, LLC, and Does 1 to 50 for alleged injuries after falling off a stage.

Defendant Trap Karaoke, LLC (“Defendant”) now moves for a determination that the settlement with Plaintiff was 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 $1,000,000, with each side bearing their own costs and fees. This is a negligence and premises liability case that results from injuries after Plaintiff fell off a stage while attending a karaoke event at the Belasco Theatre in Los Angeles. Co-defendant Live Nation owned and set up the stage. (Redfield Decl. ¶ 3.)

Defendant sets forth that Plaintiff alleges $104,711.60 in past medical specials, and $2,674,678 in future medical expenses. (Redfield Decl. ¶ 8.) However, Defendant notes that liability is disputed, given that Plaintiff was told not to move once he stepped onto the stage and was informed that the stage ended. (Id. ¶ 6.) Additionally, Defendant asserts that all participants to the subject event accepted a waiver of liability upon purchasing tickets. (Id. ¶ 7.) The settlement represents Defendant’s policy limit, which it asserts is below what it would actually be liable for, given the facts above. (Id. ¶ 13.) Defendant also asserts there was no collusion in reaching this settlement. (Id. ¶ 14.)

Based on this information, Defendant has sufficiently set forth the Tech-Bilt factors. Accordingly, 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.