Department 58

Hearing Date: February 19, 2025

Case Name: Garcia v. Ramirez

Case No.: 24STCV02208

Matter: Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Moving Party: Defendant Erika Coronado

Responding Party: None

Tentative Ruling: The Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is granted.

This is a dog bite case. On January 29, 2024, Plaintiff Rebecca Garcia (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint alleging (1.) strict liability, (2.) negligence, and (3.) strict liability against Defendants Marco Ramirez, Daniel Ramirez, and Erika Coronado.

On August 23, 2024, Defendant Marco Ramirez filed a Cross-Complaint for indemnity, contribution and declaratory relief against Erika Coronado.

On or about July 30, 2024, the parties – Defendant Erika Coronado (Settling Defendant), on the one hand, and Plaintiff, on the other hand – signed a settlement agreement (Settlement Agreement) in this action. The Settlement Agreement provides that Settling Defendant will pay $150,000 to Plaintiff in exchange for a full settlement and release of all claims against them and a dismissal of the Complaint. The Settlement Agreement depends upon the Court’s approval of the Motion for Good Faith Settlement.

On January 16, 2025, Settling Defendant moved for a determination of a good faith settlement with respect to the Settlement Agreement. No opposition was filed.

The other potential parties involved include the following: Marco Ramirez and Daniel Ramirez.

The motion for determination of a good faith settlement is granted.

Legal Standard

“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).)

In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488 (Tech-Bilt), our Supreme Court explained that in making a good faith settlement determination, a trial court should “inquire, among other things, whether the amount of the settlement is within the reasonable range of the settling tortfeasor's proportional share of comparative liability for the plaintiff's injuries.” (Id. at p. 499.) “The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).)

“In the context of section 877.6, ‘[t]he trial court is given broad discretion in deciding whether a settlement is in “good faith” for purposes of section 877.6, and its decision may be reversed only upon a showing of abuse of discretion.’ ” (Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 957.)

Discussion

Settling Defendant requests the Court find her settlement with Plaintiff in the amount of $150,000 was made in good faith based on her position that the Settlement Agreement meets all the relevant Tech-Bilt factors.

Acknowledging that there is no precise method to determine whether parties entered into a good faith settlement, the Supreme Court in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488 provided guidelines for determining whether a settlement is made in good faith. (38 Cal.3d at 495.) Rather, the court must strike a 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 Tech-Bilt 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 [Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6].” (Ibid.)

Here, under the Settlement Agreement, Settling Defendant is to pay the sum of $150,000.00. Settling Defendant argues that this amount is within the ballpark of Settling Defendant’s liability. Specifically, Settling Defendant contends Plaintiff’s discovery attests to a injury to her left wrist/arm and she may need a “future scar revision surgery;” however, Plaintiff has “derived no loss of income due to the injury.” (Mot., 6:18-20.) The motion suggests that $150,000 is adequate compensation for these limited injuries.

Further, the Settlement was reached through an arm’s length negotiation and was not obtained through collusion, concealment or for purposes of injuring any other parties to this action. (Stratman Decl., ¶¶ 9-10.)

The motion is unopposed. “[W]hen 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 Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1261.)

Conclusion

The Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is granted.