Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 19STCV01408, Date: 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV01408    Hearing Date: January 9, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Tayyib Sabur Naheem Ali (“Plaintiff”), filed this action against defendants City of Los Angeles (the “City”), Nogoom Hookah (“Hookah”), and St. John Land Company (“St. John”) for injuries relating to Plaintiff’s trip and fall on a sidewalk.  On May 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amendment to complaint naming Mechal R. Samaan (“Samaan”) as Doe 1.  The complaint alleges claims for negligence and premises liability. 

Plaintiff and Defendants the City and St. John have agreed to settle the claims against St. John and the City for $10,000.00 from St. John and $23,750.00 from the City in exchange for a release and dismissal of prejudice of the action against St. John and the City.  St. John now moves for an order finding the settlements were entered into good faith.  St. John provides that Samaan and Hookah occupied the subject property where the incident occurred through a lease with St. John, and that the lease provided that St. John would not be liable for injury to Samaan’s or Hookah’s invitees, which Plaintiff was on the date of the incident. 

St. John provides a declaration sufficiently addressing the factors in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward- Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488 to show that the settlement between it and Plaintiff was made in good faith.  It discusses proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement, and a lack of collusion or fraud.  Further, St. John submits a stipulation signed by Plaintiff’s, the City’s, and St. John’s counsel stating the parties agree the settlements were entered into in good faith.  Although this stipulation was rejected, and it does not address the Tech-Bilt factors, it does demonstrate that the parties that are actively participating in this litigation deem the settlements to be in good faith.      

St. John filed the instant application for determination of good faith settlement on September 6, 2022.  No party has filed an opposition to the motion.  The burden on a motion for determination of good faith settlement rests squarely on the party opposing the finding of good faith.  (CCP §877.6(d).)  In light of the lack of opposition, no party has met that burden. 

St. John’s motion for determination of good faith settlement is therefore granted as to the settlement between Plaintiff and St. John.

To the extent that St. John seeks an order determining the settlement between Plaintiff and the City was in good faith, St. John fails to establish that it is authorized to bring this motion on the City’s behalf.  St. John and the City are represented by different counsel in this matter, and there is no indication the instant motion was jointly made by St. John and the City.  Further, the motion states only that the City agreed to resolve Plaintiff’s claims for $23,750.00, but there is otherwise no competent or admissible evidence submitted addressing the Tech-Bilt factors in regard to the settlement between Plaintiff and the City.  Therefore, the motion is granted only as to the settlement between Plaintiff and St. John.  The ruling is without prejudice to the City properly seeking a determination that its settlement is in good faith, or all necessary parties filing a stipulation that the settlement was entered into in good faith, addressing the Tech-Bilt factors, and providing a proposed order. 

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 9^th day of January 2023