Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV09917, Date: 2023-05-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09917    Hearing Date: May 10, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Jonathan Godinez Chavez’s Application for Good Faith Settlement

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

BACKGROUND

On March 22, 2022, Plaintiffs Jonathan Loi (“Jonathan”) and Teresa Loi (“Teresa”) filed this action against Defendants Jonathan Godinez Chavez (“Chavez”), Kimberly Janet Perezarriola (“Perezarriola”), Elvia Pena (“Pena”) and Jade Myco Harris (“Myco Harris”) for motor vehicle negligence. Plaintiffs later amended the complaint to include Defendant Jade Harris (“M. Harris”).

On May 13, 2022, Pena filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Chavez and Myco Harris for indemnification, apportionment of fault, declaratory relief, motor vehicle and general negligence. On October 14, 2022, Chavez filed an answer. On March 20, 2023, Myco Harris filed an answer.

On October 14, 2022, Chavez filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant Myco Harris for comparative indemnity, contribution and declaratory relief.

On March 3, 2023, Myco Harris filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Jonathan, Teresa, Chavez, Perezarriola, Pena and Oscar Godinez Fuentes (“Fuentes”) for contribution, indemnity and declaratory relief. On March 28, 2023, Chavez filed an answer.

On March 8, 2023, Pena filed an application for determination of good faith settlement.

On March 13, 2023, Chavez filed a Motion to Contest Pena’s Application for Good Faith Settlement to be heard on May 10, 2023. On April 14, 2023, Myco Harris filed a joinder to the motion. On May 3, 2023, Pena filed an opposition.

Trial is currently scheduled for September 19, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Chavez requests the Court deny the settlement for not being in good faith. Myco Harris joins.

Pena requests the Court find the settlement to be made in good faith.

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

First, the Court notes that Myco Harris’ joinder is untimely; however, this is due to a delay in the service of the application. The Court reviews Myco Harris’ papers on the merits.

Recovery and Proportionate Liability

Plaintiffs’ claim arises from an automobile collision. According to Pena, Pena was operating her vehicle in a reasonable manner when she was cut-off by Chavez; as a result of being cut-off by Chavez, Pena swerved to the left to avoid colliding with Chavez’s vehicle. During this swerve, Pena’s vehicle collided with Myco Harris’ vehicle, which was allegedly traveling 35 miles over the speed limit. Myco Harris then lost control of her vehicle due to this unsafe speed and struck the vehicle being driven by Plaintiffs. Pena states she was not at fault for the accident, as she was merely reacting to the negligent actions of other parties.

Chavez argues that Pena was traveling at a “high rate of speed,” at the time of the incident. No other provided information conflicts with Pena’s factual account. Chavez argues that had Pena been speeding, Pena could be found anywhere from 50-100% liable for the action.

In response to written discovery, Plaintiffs have produced past medical records which total less than $10,000.00 each; $3,456.00 and $2,955.00, respectively. Pena settled with Plaintiffs for $20,000.00, with each Plaintiff receiving half of that total. This means that Pena’s proposed settlement would more than cover the currently presented economic damages, despite Pena’s claim that Pena is not liable for the incident. When weighing a good faith settlement, the

Court focuses on the economic damages presented. Pena’s proposed settlement more than accounts for any potential liability, as it covers the entirety of the currently proposed economic damages. Even if Pena was 100% liable, Pena’s proposed settlement covers 100% of the economic damages. This weighs heavily in favor of finding this is a good faith settlement.

Allocation of Settlement

Each Plaintiff will receive half of the proposed settlement, $10,000.00. This is a fair allocation, given the fact both Plaintiffs were injured in the subject incident, each with medical damages currently totaling less than $10,000.00.

Financial considerations

Pena did not provide additional information on Pena’s financial conditions, but these conditions are irrelevant here. Pena has agreed to settle for far more than Pena’s potential liability, as Pena is covering Plaintiffs’ current economic damages in full.

Chavez states that Pena’s insurance covers bodily injury in the amount of $100,000.00 per person/$300,000.00 per incident. However, this is irrelevant, as Pena’s settlement exceeds the claimed medical damages.

Collusion or Fraud

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

Other Considerations

Chavez and Harris argue that it is too early to determine if the application should be approved, as parties have yet to complete written discovery. The Court disagrees—settlement is evaluated based on the information available at the time the settlement is reached. (Tech-Bilt, Inc., supra, 38 Cal.3d at pg. 499.) Here, Plaintiffs have identified less than $20,000.00 in economic expenses. Pena has agreed to pay $20,000.00, in order to avoid the costs associated with trial and discovery. This is a reasonable settlement based on the currently available information.

Conclusion

The Court finds that Pena’s settlement satisfies the Tech-Built factors. The settlement exceeds the currently requested economic damages, making the settlement amount exceed any potential liability attributable to Pena. The settlement is fair and made in good faith. The Court denies the motion to contest, instead granting the application.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Jonathan Godinez Chavez’s Application for Good Faith Settlement is DENIED. The Court GRANTS Pena’s Application for Good Faith Settlement.

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.