Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2022-00013459-CU-PA-CTL, Date: 2023-09-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 28, 2023

09/29/2023  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  PI/PD/WD - Auto Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00013459-CU-PA-CTL CARAVIA VS MONTIJO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant BRP Inc.'s unopposed Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.

As background, the Court previously granted Defendant's Motion to Seal, but only as to the settlement amount at issue in this motion. (ROA 90 – Minute Order dated Aug. 2, 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) 38Cal.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 BRP should pay less in settlement than it would if it were found liable after a trial and trial is approaching. The Court also considered BRP's offer that it has sufficient financial resources to pay the settlement amount. Further, there is no evidence of collusion, fraud or tortious conduct aimed to injure the other defendants.

Critically, the approximation of Plaintiff's total recovery and the settler's proportionate liability weigh in favor of finding good faith. The undisputed evidence and argument by BRP shows the Maverick and its component parts were designed and manufactured reasonably safe for their foreseeable use and it met Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3007287  51 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  CARAVIA VS MONTIJO [IMAGED]  37-2022-00013459-CU-PA-CTL all applicable manufacturing standards. Eduardo Guzman's, the minor driver, inexperience as an unlicensed driver caused the accident and Plaintiff was negligent by failing to heed the numerous warnings and instructions by BRP to 'never grab the cage while riding' because 'hands can be crushed between the cage and the ground in a rollover' and to 'keep hands on the...hold hands.' Further, the undisputed evidence shows the Maverick was equipped with a roof panel contrary to Plaintiff's allegation it lacked a roof. In addition, Plaintiff and BRP did not have a privity of contract as required for Plaintiff's breach of warranty claim. Thus, BRP's liability, if any, is reduced on the comparative fault of minor Eduardo Guzman, the negligent entrustment of his mother Lydia Montijo and David Arambula, the owner of the Maverick.

The motion is GRANTED as the other defendants have 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 The settlement between BRP and Plaintiff Alex Caravia is deemed to be made and entered into in good faith within the meaning and affect of C.C.P. section 877.6.

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

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.

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

Defendant BRP is ordered to serve notice of the ruling by October 3, 2023.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3007287  51