Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case 20STCV48296 2023-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Department 58

(2) 2x Petitions to Approve Compromise of Pending Action on Behalf of Minors Bryan K. Eichert Jr. and Kaitlyn C. Aubuchon

(2) Plaintiffs Tab J. Rhodes; Lisa C. Eichert-Rhodes; Bryan K. Eichert; Natalie R. Eichert; Bryan K. Eichert, II; Zachary J. Rhodes; Kaitlyn C. Aubuchon; Kamila C. Aubuchon; Steven J. Aubuchon

Tentative Ruling: The application for determination of good faith settlement is granted. The petitions to approve compromise of pending action on behalf of minors is continued to a later date.

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint alleged fourteen causes of action against Defendants Fang Gu, Delong Mao, Tiffany Chen, Inc., MKM, and Jessica Chui for: breach of implied warranty of habitability, breach of implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, constructive eviction, negligence, private nuisance, conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and bad faith retention of security deposit.

The Complaint avers that Plaintiffs were tenants in a property owned by Defendants Fang Gu and Delong Mao. After discovering mold in the unit, Plaintiffs moved from the Property and resided in hotels and Airbnb lodging. During that time, Plaintiffs communicated with the landlord’s realtor and agent, A+ Realty and Jessica Chui.

In March 2022, A+ Realty and Jessica Chui filed a Cross-complaint against Mulhearn Realtors, Inc. and Mimi A. Stankowich for equitable indemnification, contribution, and declaratory relief. Cross-complainants alleged that the Cross-defendants “failed to recommend . . . that further testing and inspection should be performed . . . to determine and confirm whether the Subject Property was contaminated with mold, mildew, fungus or spores prior to Plaintiffs entering the Lease.”

Plaintiffs have settled the case with Defendants/Cross-defendants Jessica Chui, Tiffany Chen, Inc., Mimi Stankowich, and Mulhearn Realtors, Inc. The settlement amount is for $75,000.00. Jessica Chui and Tiffany Chen, Inc. will contribute $65,000.00 while Mimi Stankowich and Mulhearn Realtors, Inc. will contribute $10,000.00.

Cross-defendants Mulhearn Realtors and Mimi Stankowich move for a determination of good faith settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6.

Additionally, Plaintiffs filed two Petitions to Approve Compromise of a Minor’s Claim as to the two minors on this case, Bryan K. Eichert Jr. (Bryan) and Kamila C. Aubuchon (Kamila), based on that settlement.

“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).)

When a motion seeking a determination under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 is unopposed, the burden on the movant to show that the settlement was made in good faith is slight. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261 [holding that a bare motion including a declaration with a brief background of the case is sufficient].)

There is no precise method to determine whether parties entered into a good faith settlement. (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 495 (Tech-Bilt).) The court must balance between the public policy favoring settlements and the competing policy favoring equitable allocation of costs between tortfeasors. (Id. at pp. 498-99.) To accomplish this, the California Supreme Court provided the following factors for determining whether a proposed settlement is based on good faith: (1) a rough approximation of plaintiff’s total recovery and the settling defendant’s proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) allocation of settlement amounts among plaintiffs; (4) recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than it would if it were found liable after trial; (5) financial conditions and insurance policy limits of the settling defendant; and (6) the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of non-settling defendants. (Id. at 499-500.) The burden of proof in asserting that a settlement lacked good faith falls upon the party making the assertion and it must show that “the settlement is so far ‘out of the ballpark’ in relation to these factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of [CCP § 877.6].” (Ibid.)

As there is no opposition, the Application may be granted without consideration of the Tech-Bilt factors and on the basis of a “barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case.” (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d at p. 1261 [“[W]e . . . 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.”)

Cross-defendants submit the declaration of their counsel, Richard L. Goor, who indicates that the parties engaged in “extensive direct settlement discussions after a mediation.” (Goor Decl., ¶ 4.) The Application indicates that the Cross-defendants dispute liability, but that they seek to avoid further fees and costs in litigation. Furthermore, in discovery, Plaintiffs’ damages were revealed to be around $92,289.00 for property damage. (Application, p. 6:3-4.) Thus, the amount appears reasonable under those circumstances.

Accordingly, the Court does not find that “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 pp. 499–500.) Thus, the Court grants the application for determination of good faith settlement.

Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor’s claim.¿ (Prob. Code §§ 3500, 3600, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc., § 372.) California Rules of Court, rule 7.950 provides that a petition “must be verified by the petitioner and must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise.” The Petition must be filed on Judicial Council Form MC-350 and must be fully completed.

Plaintiffs submitted revised Petitions to Approve Compromise of Disputed Claim. However, there are still defects.

Preliminarily, there does not appear to be any court orders appointing either Bryan Eichert or Kaitlyn C. Aubuchon as the guardian ad litem for the minors. Code of Civil Procedure section 372, subdivision (a) provides that a minor must appear in litigation by a guardian or conservator of her estate, or a Guardian Ad Litem appointed by the court.

Accordingly, the Court will continue the hearing to permit an amended submission to address these issues.