Judge Blaine K. Bowman, Case Number: 37-2021-00046276-CU-NP-CTL, Date: 2024-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Blaine K. Bowman, Case: 37-2021-00046276-CU-NP-CTL, Date: 2024-04-05 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 04, 2024

04/05/2024 08:30:00 AM C-74 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Blaine K. Bowman

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Non-PI/PD/WD tort - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00046276-CU-NP-CTL LIM VS DEL MAR [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Andrea Pena Navarro's motion to determination of good faith settlement is GRANTED. CCP § 877.6.

Navarro's burden in moving for good faith is to prove there has been a settlement. Fisher v. Superior Court (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 434, 447. See also, Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Company (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1350, fn.6. Navarro meets this burden via evidence that Navarro settled with Plaintiffs for the sum of $37,500.00 to be paid by Navarro's insurer. Since Navarro meets Navarro's burden, the burden shifts to opposing parties Defendants Enrico Del Mar Jr. and Enrico Del Mar Jr. Inc.

to show the settlement was not made in good faith. Fisher, 103 Cal.App.3d at 447; Mattco, 38 Cal.App.4th at 1350, fn.6; CCP 877.6. ['The party asserting lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.'] The court finds the Del Mar Defendants fail to meet their burden.

The first argument the Del Mar Defendants raise is based on Plaintiffs' total damages claim of $244,504.99. However, '[a] plaintiff's claims for damages are not determinative in finding good faith.' West v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1625, 1636. Moreover, a settler should pay less in settlement than they would if they were found liable after trial. Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499. The Del Mar Defendants also argue that the amount of the settlement is less than the $50,000.00 policy limit. However, Navarro submits evidence to support the $37,500.00 settlement and the Del Mar Defendants offer no evidence to support their argument that Navarro is required to pay the full policy limit of $50,000.00. Nor do the Del Mar Defendants provide authority requiring payment of insurance policy limits as a prerequisite to a finding of good faith.

None of the other arguments the Del Mar Defendants raise is sufficient to preclude a finding of good faith. As Navarro explains in reply, there is no allocation between general and special damages because the settlement does not include general damages. Moreover, nothing in CC § 1431.2 requires an allocation between general and special damages for purposes of a good faith determination.

Similarly, the Del Mar Defendants offer no authority requiring an allocation of proceeds as between Plaintiffs and their attorneys. Although they raise the issue, the court finds the Del Mar Defendants fail to establish any basis for a finding of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct. While the Del Mar Defendants seek a continuance to take the deposition of Navarro, as Tech-Bilt explains 'practical considerations obviously require that the evaluation be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement.' Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal.3d at 499. The Del Mar Defendants' reliance on the burden discussion in Mattco Forge is misplaced. As Mattco explains, . . . the party asserting the lack of good faith has the burden of proof on that issue. (§ 877.6, subd. (d).) Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3099600 4 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: LIM VS DEL MAR [IMAGED] 37-2021-00046276-CU-NP-CTL Therefore, in bringing the motion for good faith settlement, Helmer & Neff were not compelled to make a showing as to their proportionate liability. However, after Young attacked the settlement as lacking in good faith, Helmer & Neff were required to file counteraffidavits (§ 877.6, subd. (b)) to make an evidentiary showing that the settlement was 'in the ballpark.' In the absence of such a showing by Helmer & Neff, as the parties seeking approval of the good faith settlement, there is 'no substantial evidence to support a critical assumption as to the nature and extent of [the] settling [parties'] liability[.]' (Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., supra, 220 Cal.App.3d at p. 871.) Mattco Forge, 38 Cal.App.4th at 1350, fn. 6. The other case the Del Mar Defendants rely on, City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, contains a similar analysis.

This court notes that of the hundreds of motions for good faith determination presented for trial court approval each year, the overwhelming majority are unopposed and granted summarily by the trial court.

At the time of filing in many cases, the moving party does not know if a contest will develop. If each motion required a full recital by declaration or affidavit setting forth a complete factual response to all of the Tech-Bilt factors, literally thousands of attorney hours would be consumed and inch-thick motions would have to be read and considered by trial courts in an exercise which would waste valuable judicial and legal time and clients' resources. It must also be remembered that Tech-Bilt was decided on a contested basis. We are unaware of any reported decision which has reversed an uncontested good faith determination and we, 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.

If the good faith settlement is contested, section 877.6, subdivision (d), sets forth a workable ground rule for the hearing by placing the burden of proving the lack of good faith on the contesting party. Once there is a showing made by the settlor of the settlement, the burden of proof on the issue of good faith shifts to the nonsettlor who asserts that the settlement was not made in good faith. (Fisher v. Superior Court (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 434, 447 [163 Cal.Rptr. 47]; § 877.6, subd. (d).) If contested, declarations by the nonsettlor should be filed which in many cases could require the moving party to file responsive counterdeclarations to negate the lack of good faith asserted by the nonsettling contesting party. We, therefore, conclude that the motion was sufficient in this case in that a prima facie showing of a good faith settlement was set forth by settlor.

City of Grand Terrace, 192 Cal.App.3d at 1261–1262.

The court finds Navarro meets her burden. The court also finds the evidence the Del Mar Defendants rely on insufficient to meet their burden of establishing that the amount of the settlement is so far 'out of the ballpark' as to be 'grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person, at the time of settlement, would estimate the settling defendant's liability to be.' Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal.3d at 499. Absent evidence from the Del Mar Defendants showing a that the settlement is lacking in good faith, there is no further burden on Navarro.

Based on the evidence submitted, the court finds that the amount of the settlement is within the reasonable range of Navarro's proportionate share of comparative liability for Plaintiffs' injuries.

Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal.3d at 499. The court finds the settlement to be in good faith. This determination bars any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against Andrea Pena Navarro for equitable comparative contribution or partial or comparative indemnity based on comparative negligence or comparative fault. CCP §877.6.

If this tentative ruling is confirmed the Minute Order will be the final order of the court and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.

Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3099600 4 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: LIM VS DEL MAR [IMAGED] 37-2021-00046276-CU-NP-CTL the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3099600 4