Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2021-00034150-CU-PL-CTL, Date: 2023-09-19 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 24, 2023

08/25/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Product Liability Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00034150-CU-PL-CTL DUARTE VS POLARIS INDUSTRIES INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement, 08/01/2023

Defendant Polaris Industries, Inc.'s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.

As background, the Court previously granted Defendant Polaris Industries, Inc. (Polaris)'s Application to Seal Portions of Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement and ordered the amount of the settlement sealed. (ROA 164 – Minute Order dated Aug. 4, 2023.) Any party to an action involving multiple alleged joint tortfeasors or co-obligors may seek a hearing on the good faith of a settlement between the plaintiff and one or more of the alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors. (C.C.P., § 877.6(a)(1).) 'This legislation has two objectives: equitable sharing of costs among the parties at fault and encouragement of settlements.' (Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1348.) To obtain these results, a determination by the court as to the good faith of the settlement is required. (C.C.P., § 877.6; Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499-500 (Tech-Bilt) (listing factors for consideration in determining whether a settlement is within the good faith 'ballpark').) In Tech-Bilt, the California Supreme Court stated the test for whether a settlement is in good faith is whether 'the amount of the settlement is within the reasonable range of the settling tortfeasor's proportional share of comparative liability for the plaintiffs' injuries.' (Tech-Bilt, supra at p. 499.) A Tech-Bilt analysis considers these factors: (1) a rough approximation of plaintiffs' total recovery and the settler's proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (4) discount for settlement before trial; (5) the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants; and (6) the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of non-settling defendants. (Ibid.) When good faith is challenged, the party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue. (C.C.P., § 877.6(d).) Here, the Court evaluated the Tech-Bilt factors and finds the settlement described in the motion was made and entered into in good faith within the meaning of C.C.P. section 877.6. The Court considered the amount paid in settlement, which is under seal. The allocation of the settlement is that all of it will go to Plaintiff. The Court also recognized Polaris should pay less in settlement than it would if it were found liable after a trial and trial is approaching. The Court also considered Polaris' offer of its financial conditions and that it is self-insured with excess coverage not being implicated by this settlement.

Further, there is no evidence of collusion, fraud or tortious conduct aimed to injure Defendant Acme Cycles, Inc. (Acme). The parties participated in an arms-length mediation.

Critically, the approximation of Plaintiff's total recovery and the settler's proportionate liability weigh in Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2993751  37 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  DUARTE VS POLARIS INDUSTRIES INC [IMAGED]  37-2021-00034150-CU-PL-CTL favor of finding good faith. The following facts are undisputed. Polaris disclosed six retained experts to testify that the RZR is reasonably safe and that the accident was the result of Plaintiff's carelessness and failure to follow warnings and instructions provided with the vehicle. The injury is to Plaintiff's left arm.

Plaintiff does not claim economic damages. Plaintiff made very good progress in his recovery and will face very few restrictions going forward. Based on what is provided as a whole, it appears Polaris has settled for an amount that covers Plaintiff's damages. Further, the value of the Polaris settlement is much more than the value of Plaintiff's statutory offer to compromise served on Acme, showing Polaris is assuming the lion's share of liability and that there is no collusion, fraud or tortious conduct. Acme also does not dispute it could receive a dollar-for-dollar set-off in the event of a verdict against it.

Contrary to Acme's argument, the Court cannot deny the motion because Polaris objected to Notices to Appear at Trial of witnesses who do not reside in California and Acme did not designate its own experts.

In addition, Acme takes great issue with strict liability law and its application to Acme's position in the chain of commerce. The policy and rationale behind strict liability law does not make the settlement lack good faith.

Thus, Acme has not shown the settlement is so far 'out of the ballpark' in relation to these factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute. (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 499-500.) Concluding Orders For these reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

This determination bars any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the moving party for equitable comparative contribution or partial or comparative indemnity based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.

Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint against Polaris Industries, Inc. is dismissed with prejudice.

If the tentative ruling is confirmed without modification, the minute order will be the Court's final ruling.

Defendant Polaris Industries, Inc. is ordered to serve notice of the ruling by August 29, 2023.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2993751  37