Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 21STCV31474, Date: 2023-04-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31474    Hearing Date: April 13, 2023    Dept: 28

Cross-Defendant Fernando Torres’s Application for Good Faith Settlement

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

BACKGROUND

On August 24, 2021, Plaintiff Mary Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Chelsea Marie Reed Harmel (“Harmel”) and Michael Antosy (“Antosy”) for motor vehicle and general negligence.

On February 2, 2022, Defendants filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant Fernando Torres (“Torres”) for indemnification, apportionment and declaratory relief. Torres filed an answer on December 6, 2022.

On December 28, 2022, the Court dismissed Antosy, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.

On February 17, 2023, Torres filed a Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement to be heard on April 13, 2023. On March 30, 2023, Harmel filed an opposition. On April 6, 2023, Torres filed a reply.

Trial is currently set for July 14, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Torres requests the Court find the settlement in good faith.

Harmel requests the Court deny the motion.

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 nonsettling party may file a notice of motion to contest the good faith of the settlement. If none of the nonsettling 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 nonsettling 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 nonsettling defendants.”

DISCUSSION

This complaint arises out of a multi-vehicle collision. Plaintiff allegedly abruptly stopped while in traffic. Torres was unable to stop his vehicle in time and rear-ended Plaintiff’s vehicle. Narmel allegedly also failed to stop in time and rear-ended Torres; Torres’s vehicle was then pushed further into Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Prior to filing this action, Plaintiff and Torres entered into a settlement agreement, releasing Torres from all future claims as related to this incident.

Recovery and Proportionate Liability

Plaintiff and Torres agreed to settle for $20,000.00. Torres states that the amount of the settlement meets and/or exceeds what would have been expected to be determined in terms of liability but provided no argument or evidence in support of this claim. Torres also failed to provide information as to the requested damages by Plaintiff, and thus the Court cannot determine the amount made in proportion to the amount requested.

According to Harmel’s opposition, Plaintiff testified that the initial impact caused by Torres was substantially more significant than that caused by Harmel’s. Plaintiff is also alleging over $300,000.00 in medical damages. Given that the only information provided to the Court indicates that Torres may have been more, if not equally, at fault for Plaintiff’s injuries, this weighs against finding the settlement was made in good faith.

Allocation of Settlement

Torres provided no information as to who will receive the settlement. The Court assumes all will be allocated to Plaintiff, but no information has been provided to verify this assumption in the moving papers.

Financial considerations

Torres paid out $20,000.00 in settlement, which is his auto-policy limit. Torres provided no information as to his financial condition for the Court to evaluate.

Collusion or Fraud

There is no indication of fraud or collusion. This was an arms-length settlement conducted between counsel and the claims adjustor.

Conclusion

The Court finds that Torres has not satisfied the Tech-Bilt factors. Torres provided insufficient information for the Court to determine if the settlement was made in good faith; the information provided in the opposition indicates it was not made in good faith. The Court denies the application.

CONCLUSION

Cross-Defendant Fernando Torres’s Application for 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.