Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 21STCV00577, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV00577    Hearing Date: May 22, 2023    Dept: 28

Cross-Defendant Christine Garcia’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On January 7, 2021, Plaintiffs April Ball (“Ball”) and Antonio Kates, Sr. (“Kates”), both individually and as successors in interest of Antonio Kates, Jr. filed this action against Defendants Christine Garcia (“Christine”), Juan Salvador Salazar (“Salazar”) and JB Hunt Transporation Services, Inc. (“JB”) for motor vehicle and general negligence. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendant Silvia Garcia (“Silvia”).

On February 18, 2021, the Court dismissed Christine, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiffs’ request. On February 18, 2021, JB filed its answer. Salazar filed his answer on March 8, 2021.

On April 12, 2021, the Court noticed this case as related with 20STCV48657, making 20STCV48657 the lead case.

On May 28, 2021, Silvia filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint for implied indemnity, equitable apportionment of fault and contribution against Roes 1-100. Silvia later amended the Cross-Complaint to include Cross-Defendants Christine and Estate. On September 23, 2021, Christine filed an answer.

On April 24, 2023, the Court dismissed Kates, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiffs’ request.

On March 23, 2021, Plaintiffs Estate of David Garcia Lainez (“Estate”) and Christopher Flores (“Flores”) filed an action against Defendant Salazar and JB for motor vehicle and general negligence.

On August 25, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the FAC, adding Defendant Garcia.

On September 30, 2021, JB filed an answer. On October 14, 2021, Silva filed an answer. On October 15, 2021, Salazar filed an answer.

On September 26, 2022, the Court consolidated this case with 21STCV11151.

On April 24, 2023, Christine filed a Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement to be heard on May 22, 2023. On May 9, 2023, Silvia filed an opposition. On May 11, 2023, JB and Salazar filed a joinder. On May 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Trial is current set for August 10, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Cross-Defendant Christine requests the Court determine her settlement with Plaintiff Flores was entered into in good faith.

Silvia requests the Court deny the Motion and find the settlement was not entered into good faith. In the alternative, she asks the Court to continue the hearing to afford a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery on the issues. JB and Salazar join in this request.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 887.6(a)(2) states that “[i]n the alternative, a settling party may give notice of settlement to all parties and to the court, together with an application for determination of good faith settlement and a proposed order. The application shall indicate the settling parties, and the basis, terms, and amount of the settlement. The notice, application, and proposed order shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by personal service. Proof of service shall be filed with the court. Within 25 days of the mailing of the notice, application, and proposed order, or within 20 days of personal service, a non settling party may file a notice of motion to contest the good faith of the settlement. If none of the non settling parties files a motion within 25 days of mailing of the notice, application, and proposed order, or within 20 days of personal service, the court may approve the settlement. The notice by a non settling party shall be given in the manner provided in subdivision (b) of Section 1005. However, this paragraph shall not apply to

settlements in which a confidentiality agreement has been entered into regarding the case or the terms of the settlement.” The statute further clarifies that the party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.

CCP § 877 states “[w]here a release, dismissal with or without prejudice, or a covenant not to sue or not to enforce judgment is given in good faith before verdict or judgment to one or more of a number of tortfeasors claimed to be liable for the same tort, or to one or more other co-obligors mutually subject to contribution rights, it shall have the following effect: (a) It shall not discharge any other such party from liability unless its terms so provide, but it shall reduce the claims against the others in the amount stipulated by the release, the dismissal or the covenant, or in the amount of the consideration paid for it, whichever is the greater. (b) It shall discharge the party to whom it is given from all liability for any contribution to any other parties.”

In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499, the California Supreme Court identified the following nonexclusive factors courts are to consider in determining if a settlement is in good faith under section 877.6: “a rough approximation of plaintiffs' total recovery and the settlor's proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial. Other relevant considerations include the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants, as well as the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of non settling defendants.”

DISCUSSION

The Court analyzes the Tech-Bilt factors in determining if Christine has met her burden of proving the settlement was entered into in good faith.

Recovery and Proportionate Liability

Flores’s claim arises out a motor vehicle collision between multiple parties. Christine was mother of one of the decedents and owner of one of the vehicles involved in the collision. Flores was involved in the accident and sustained bodily injuries.

Christine alleges that the only basis for liability against Christine is that she was the registered owner of the vehicle. She also claims that Silvia has been unable to provide any evidence pertaining to an alleged malfunction or defect in Christine’s vehicle, or any basis on which to seek indemnity. The Court previously denied the motion on the basis of potential liability stemming from negligent care of the subject vehicle. However, in the absence of any evidence in support of such a finding, the Court finds it proper to evaluate this request under the theory that Plaintiff’s liability is limited to negligent entrustment.

Under VC § 17151(a), the owner of a vehicle’s liability is capped at $15,000.00 for death or injury to one individual if that is the extent of their involvement in the incident. However, this limited amount is only applicable if the owner did not commit independent acts of negligence. Silvia argues that Christine’s minor son, the driver of the vehicle, was not licensed at the time of the incident. Christine did not address this fact in the reply brief, and thus, for purposes of this motion, the Court operates under the assumption that this statement is true. Under this theory, Christine could face substantial additional liability for allowing an unlicensed minor to drive her vehicle, unsupervised. The Court is unaware if Christine gave her son permission to drive, or if he took the car without her permission. The Court is also unaware as to the facts and circumstances of the collision, as Christine provided no details beyond the involved parties. This would be the bare minimum information necessary to determine if the settlement amount is fair. Without this information, this leans heavily against finding the settlement was made in good faith.

Christine did not provide any information as to what Flores’s currently claimed economic damages total. The Court has no way to evaluate whether the total is proportionate to the special damages sought. According to Silvia’s Ex. C, Flores’s statement of damages served on Silvia, medical bills currently total $17,134.00. Silvia argues that Plaintiffs seek over $5,000,000.00 in damages, as Silvia accounts for general damages. When determining whether a settlement was reached in good faith, the Court only accounts for special or economic damages. The Court does not account for general damages—and thus, the Court will only evaluate the approximately $17,000.00 in special damages. The Court is unaware if the $15,000.00 provided is fair proportionately, as Christine did not provide any information regarding her independent act of negligence in allowing her unlicensed minor son to drive.

Allocation of Settlement

Flores will receive the total $15,000.00.

Financial considerations

Christine provided a declaration stating that she did not have any other insurance, excess coverage or umbrella policies at the time of the incident. Christine also stated that she did not own any assets in any form, including any real properties, business or investments. This weighs in favor of granting the motion.

Collusion or Fraud

There is no indication of fraud or collusion. This factor weighs in favor of granting the motion.

Conclusion

The Court finds that Christine’s settlement does not satisfies the Tech-Built factors. Christine provided insufficient information to determine actual proportionate liability, completely ignoring her independent act of negligence in providing a car to an unlicensed driver. The Court denies the motion.

CONCLUSION

Cross-Defendant Christine Garcia’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.