Department 58

Hearing Date: March 3, 2025

Case Name: Alvarez v. Limon

Case No.: 24STCV08650

Matter: Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Defendant Aime Limon

Responding Party: None

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

This is a habitability case. On January 29, 2024, Plaintiffs Jessica Alvarez, Arnulfo Guerrero, Jiselle Guerrero, Jianni Guerrero, Genesis Guerrero, and Jayden Guerrero (Plaintiffs) filed a Complaint alleging (1.) negligence, (2.) breach of implied warranty of habitability, and (3.) breach of Los Angeles County Code § 8.52.090 against Defendants Aime Limon and Salgado Family Investments LLC.

On May 31, 2024, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Salgado Family Investments LLC filed a Cross-Complaint for indemnity, contribution, comparative fault and declaratory relief against Cross-Defendant Aime Limon.

On or about November 4, 2024, the parties – Defendant Aime Limon (Settling Defendant), on the one hand, and Plaintiffs, on the other hand – signed a settlement agreement (Settlement Agreement) in this action. The Settlement Agreement provides that Settling Defendant will pay $25,000 to Plaintiffs in exchange for a full settlement and release of all claims against her and a dismissal of the Complaint. The Settlement Agreement depends upon the Court’s approval of the Motion for Good Faith Settlement.

On January 24, 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 party involved is Defendant/Cross-Complainant Salgado Family Investments LLC.

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 Plaintiffs in the amount of $25,000 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 $25,000.00. Settling Defendant argues that this amount is within the ballpark of Settling Defendant’s liability. Specifically, Settling Defendant contends her alleged liability is minimal given her recent ownership of the subject property. (Mot., 4:27-28 [Rustin Decl., ¶ 7].) The motion contends that $25,000 is adequate compensation for this limited liability. Moreover, the $25,000 represents the entire policy limits of Settling Defendant’s insurance policy through American Modern Property and Casualty Insurance Company (AMPCIC). (Rustin Decl., ¶ 11.)

Lastly, 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. (Rustin Decl., ¶ 14.)

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.