Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV01139, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23GDCV01139 Hearing Date: December 15, 2023 Dept: E
TENTATIVE RULING ON GOOD
FAITH SETTLEMENT
Moving
Party: Defendant, Juan Jose Beltran
Responding
Party: No Opposition Submitted
Moving
Papers: Notice/Motion
Opposing
Papers: No Opposition Submitted
Reply
Papers: No Reply Submitted
Proof
of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Ok
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Ok
Correct Address (CCP §1013, §1013a, §1013b): Ok
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Defendant,
Juan Jose Beltran, moves this Court pursuant to CCP §877.6(a)(1) for an order
determining that the settlement between Mr. Beltran and Plaintiff, Vardan Baghdasaryan
(“Plaintiff”), in the above-entitled action was reached in good faith, thereby
barring and dismissing any pending or future claims or cross-complaints against
Mr. Beltran based on apportionment of fault, equitable indemnification and
declaratory relief and for a determination that Mr. Beltran is released from
all liability for contribution and indemnity, as to any other non-settling
parties herein, for damages allegedly arising from the Incident which is the
basis of this litigation, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §877.6(c).
Plaintiff
has agreed to settle his claims with Mr. Beltran for the total amount of
$40,500.00 (Forty Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars) inclusive of any and all
attorney’s fees and costs which might otherwise be recoverable by Plaintiff
from Mr. Beltran in connection with this lawsuit (“Settlement”).
Although
liability on the part of Mr. Beltran remains disputed, the Settlement was
reached in this negligence action to avoid protracted litigation, policy
exposure, and further attorneys’ fees and costs including expert witness
depositions and trial. As such, Plaintiff and Mr. Beltran, by and through their
respective attorneys, entered into arms-length negotiations to resolve this
matter.
This
Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points and
Authorities, the Declaration of Lily Nhan, Esq., filed concurrently herewith,
all of the pleadings, files, and records in this proceeding, all other matters
of which the Court may take judicial notice, and any argument or evidence that
may be presented to or considered by the Court prior to its ruling.
BACKGROUND
On
06/02/2023, Plaintiff, Vardan Baghdasaryan, filed a Complaint against
Defendants Juan Jose Beltran and Hovsep Hovsepyan. The allegations in the
Complaint arise from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10/12/2022 on
I-134.
On 07/26/2023, Defendant,
Juan Jose Beltran, filed a Cross-Complaint against Defendant, Hovsep Hovsepyan,
alleging causes of action for: (1) Comparative Indemnity and Apportionment of
Fault; (2) Total Equitable Indemnity; (3) Contribution; and (4) Declaratory
Relief.
On 09/05/2023, Hovsep
Hovsepyan filed a motion for leave to file a Cross-Complaint against Juan Jose
Beltran for comparative indemnity and declaratory relief.
On 11/17/2023, Hovsep’s
motion for leave to file a Cross-Complaint was continued to 12/15/2023.
Defendant, Juan Jose
Beltran now moves for an order under CCP § 877.6(a)(1) determining that the
settlement between Beltran and Plaintiff was reached in good faith, thereby
barring and dismissing any pending or future claims or cross-complaints against
Mr. Beltran based on apportionment of fault, equitable indemnification, and
declaratory relief, and for a determination that Mr. Beltran is released from
all liability for contribution and indemnity, as to any other non-settling
parties herein, for damages allegedly arising from the Incident which is the
basis of this litigation, pursuant to 877.6(c).
LEGAL STANDARD – MOTION FOR DETERMINATION
OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT
“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 shall be 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, upon giving
notice in the manner provided in subdivision (b) of Section 1005.” (CCP § 877.6(a)(1).)
“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.” (CCP §877.6(c).)
Further, § 877 states in relevant part, “Where a
release, dismissal with or without prejudice, or a covenant not to sue or not
to enforce judgment is given in good faith before verdict or judgment to one or
more of a number of tortfeasors claimed to be liable for the same tort, or to
one or more other co-obligors mutually subject to contribution rights, it shall
have the following effect:
(a) It shall not discharge any other such party
from liability unless its terms so provide, but it shall reduce the claims
against the others in the amount stipulated by the release, the dismissal or
the covenant, or in the amount of the consideration paid for it, whichever is
the greater.
(b) It shall discharge the party to whom it is
given from all liability for any contribution to any other parties.” (CCP §877(a)-(b).)
Factors to consider in determining if a settlement was
made in good faith include “a rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery
and the settlor’s proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement, the
allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a
settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable
after a trial.” (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985)
38 Cal.3d 488, 499.) “Other relevant considerations include the financial
conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants, as well as the
existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the
interests of nonsettling defendants.” (Id.) “Finally, practical
considerations obviously require that the evaluation be made on the basis of
information available at the time of settlement.” (Id.)
“[A] court not only looks at the alleged tortfeasor’s
potential liability to the plaintiff, but it must also consider the culpability
of the tortfeasor vis-à-vis other parties alleged to be responsible for the
same injury.” (TSI Seismic Tenant Space, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007)
149 Cal.App.4th 159, 166.) “Potential liability for indemnity to a nonsettling
defendant is an important consideration for the trial court in determining
whether to approve a settlement by an alleged tortfeasor.” (Id.)
“The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have
the burden of proof on that issue.” (CCP § 877.6(d).) The party asserting the
lack of good faith can establish that the proposed settlement was not a
settlement made in good faith by showing the settlement is so far “out of the
ballpark” in relation to the Tech-Bilt factors as to be inconsistent
with the equitable objectives of the statute. (Tech-Bilt, Inc.,
supra, 38 Cal.3d at 499-500.)
TENTATIVE RULING
“[W]e,
therefore, conclude that only when the good faith nature of a settlement is
disputed, it is incumbent upon the trial court to consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt
factors. That is to say, when no one objects, the 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 Grant Terrace v.
Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.)
Here, Defendant, Juan Jose Beltran’s, motion for
determination of good faith settlement went unopposed.
Beltran’s counsel, Nhan, states that Plaintiff agreed
to settle his claims with Mr. Beltran for the total amount of $40,500.00. (Nhan
Decl. ¶6.) Nhan explains how Plaintiff’s total medical expenses were $18,760.00
and how Plaintiff’s total loss of earnings claim is $16,113.59. (Nhan Decl.
¶¶11-13.) Therefore, Movant states that based on Plaintiff’s medical expenses ($18,760),
plus Plaintiff’s claim of lost earnings of $16,113.59; Plaintiff’s special, economic
damages total $34,873.59. (Nhan Decl. ¶13.)
Therefore, this Court GRANTS Defendant, Juan Jose
Beltran’s motion for determination of good faith settlement. This ruling bars
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 under § 877.6(c).)
Further, this Court DENIES Hovsep Hovsepyan’s motion
for leave to file a cross-complaint against Mr. Beltran for comparative
indemnity and declaratory relief as MOOT.