Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 22STCV13345, Date: 2024-07-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13345    Hearing Date: July 3, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

Seven pleadings have been filed in this action, which was originally assigned to Department 55 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

On September 6, 2022, Cross-Defendant Utopia Development, Inc. (UDI) filed a Cross-Complaint alleging claims of equitable indemnity, apportionment/contribution, express indemnity, breach of contract, and declaratory relief.

On June 14, 2023, UDI filed an Amendment to Cross-Complaint naming Doe 155 as Defendant Yanes Rain Gutters, Inc. (Yanes).

On April 9, 2024, Yanes filed a motion for determination of good faith settlement between itself and UDI. The motion was set for hearing on July 12, 2024.

On April 10, 2024, Yanes filed an ex parte application to advance the hearing on its motion for determination of good faith settlement.

That same day, Roe 76 R A Construction, Inc. filed a peremptory challenge.

On April 12, 2024, Department 55 granted the peremptory challenge and reassigned this action to Department 40 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse (the Court).

On April 12, 2024, the Court set a case management conference for June 11, 2024.

On June 11, 2024, the Court held the case management conference and scheduled Yanes’s motion for determination of good faith settlement for July 3, 2024.

That same day, Yanes filed an amended notice for its motion for determination of good faith settlement.

Cross-Defendant Yanes’s motion is now before the Court.

II. Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement: TENATIVELY GRANTED.

A. Legal Standard

Any party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt is entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(1).)

In the alternative, a settling party may give notice of settlement to all parties and to the court, together with an application for determination of good faith settlement and a proposed order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(2).) The application shall indicate the settling parties, and the basis, terms, and amount of the settlement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(2).) The notice, application, and proposed order shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by personal service, with proof of service to be filed with the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(2).) Within 25 days of the mailing of the notice, application, and proposed order, or within 20 days of personal service, a nonsettling party may file a notice of motion to contest the good faith of the settlement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(2).) If none of the nonsettling parties files a motion within 25 days of mailing of the notice, application, and proposed order, or within 20 days of personal service, the court may approve the settlement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(2).) However, this subsection does not apply to settlements in which a confidentiality agreement has been entered into regarding the case or the terms of the settlement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(2).)

The issue of the good faith of a settlement may be determined by the court on the basis of affidavits served with the notice of hearing, and any counteraffidavits filed in response, or the court may, in its discretion, receive other evidence at the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (b).)

A party asserting lack of good faith in settlement has the burden of proving lack of good faith. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).) The objecting party may carry its burden by demonstrating that the settlement is so far “out of the ballpark” in relation to various factors, including:

(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 it would if it 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, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assocs. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499-500.)

A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (c); Britz, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 177, 180 (Britz) [finding a good faith settlement determination discharges indemnity claims by other tortfeasors, whether or not named as parties to the action, provided they were given notice and an opportunity to be heard].)

B. Analysis

1. Service of Notice, Motion, and Proposed Order

The Court requires greater clarity as to proof of service.

Here, the proof of service and service list attached to the notice and amended notice of motion show service on all parties but for: (1) Gerardo Hernandez Martinez (FAC; Business Alliance Cross-Complaint); (2) Wesco Insurance Company (FAC); (3) Genty Group Inc. (Business Alliance Cross-Complaint; dismissed from FAC and from Ohit Casualty Cross-Complaint); and (4) various Does named in Judicial Council Amendments to Complaint by (a) Old Republic, Inc., on November 16, 2022, (b) Plaintiffs on April 6, 2023, and (c) UDI on March 29, 2023, and June 14 and 15, 2023.

The Court requires greater clarity as to service on these parties, including, for example, whether these parties have not appeared or have been dismissed and thus need not have been served.

2. Required Information in Motion

Yanes’s motion contains Yanes and UDI’s settlement terms: $35,000 from Yanes, Burlington, and Colony to Utopia; the execution of a release agreement with specific terms; each side pays its fees and costs; settlement contingent on approval by the Court; and dismissal after an order. (Mot., p. 4, Lowe Decl., ¶ 13.)

Note: the Court cannot locate “Burlington” or “Colony” in the record, either as parties explicitly named in a pleading or Does named in an amendment.

This information satisfies Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (a)(2) on this issue.

3. Challenges by Non-Settling Parties

No challenges appear in the record from any party that was served with Yanes’s motion.

However, the Court does not make a final determination relating to this point until the Court has greater clarity on whether all parties to the action were served pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (a)(2).

4. Confidentiality Agreement

Yanes’s motion contains Yanes and UDI’s settlement terms, as discussed above, thus satisfying Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (a)(2) on this issue.

5. Tech-Bilt Factors

The Court does not proceed with a Tech-Bilt analysis for lack of an opposition.

However, the Court does not make a final determination relating to this point until the Court has greater clarity on whether all parties to the action were served pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (a)(2).

6. Final Determination

Yanes’s motion is TENATIVELY GRANTED subject to proof of service of the motion on “all parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(2).)

III. Conclusion

Cross-Defendant Doe 155 Yanes Rain Gutters, Inc.’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement [Res ID # 9796] is TENATIVELY GRANTED upon proof of service on all parties.