Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV00032, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 23PSCV00032    Hearing Date: August 24, 2023    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

Elsie Martinez’s APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT is GRANTED.

Background

This case arises from a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff DIANA VASQUEZ FIGUEROA alleges that Defendant ELSIE MARTINEZ hit Plaintiff’s vehicle, and then immediately after the first collision, Defendant NOE PACHECOREYES (“Noe”) rear-ended ELSIE MARTINEZ, who then rear-ended Plaintiff again.

On January 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed suit.

On March 13, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed Elsie Martinez.

On April 17, 2023, Noe filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Elsie Martinez.

On June 22, 2023, Elsie Martinez filed her answer to Noe’s cross-complaint, and filed a cross-complaint against Noe.

On June 26, 2023, Noe filed his answer to Elsie Martinez’s cross-complaint.

On July 10, 2023, Elsie Martinez filed thie instant motion for determination of good faith settlement (GFS).

On July 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint naming Twotone, Inc. as Doe 1.

Legal Standard

Under section 877.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure,[1] “[a] determination by the court that [a] settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor . . . from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor . . . for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (c).) “The party asserting the lack of good faith has the burden of proof on that issue.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).) 

Section 877.6 requires “that the courts review [settlement] agreements made under its aegis to insure that the settlements appropriately balance the . . . statute’s dual objectives” (i.e., providing an “equitable sharing of costs among the parties at fault” and encouraging parties to resolve their disputes by way of settlement). (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 494 (Tech-Bilt).)

In Tech-Bilt, the California Supreme Court set forth the factors to consider when determining whether a settlement was made in good faith. The Tech-Bilt factors are:

(1) A rough approximation of plaintiff’s total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability;

(2) The amount paid in settlement;

(3) The allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs;

(4) A recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a 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 the non-settling defendants.

(Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 498-501.)[2]

Discussion

The settlement figure between the moving defendant and Plaintiff is $15,000, which represents the insurance policy limit.

“When the insurance company for a settling defendant pays its total available policy limits, that is very strong evidence of a ‘good faith’ settlement, absent evidence of collusion or grossly inappropriate allocation or apportionment of the settlement proceeds to injure the nonsettling alleged tortfeasors . . .Experience teaches us that insurance companies usually and ordinarily pay their policy limits only to have their insureds and themselves discharged from all liability in any given case.” (See Fisher v. Superior Court (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 434, 435.) Thus, as settling Defendant’s insurance company is paying its total available policy limits, it is very strong evidence of a “good faith” settlement.

To the extent that the settlement is so far “out of the ballpark,” Defendant Noe (or newly named Defendant Twotone) have not filed an opposition. With that, a bare bones motion setting forth the grounds of good faith and a declaration containing a brief background of the case is sufficient.  (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.) 

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the application is granted.[3]