Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV03743, Date: 2025-04-23 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: 23PSCV03743    Hearing Date: April 23, 2025    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

DEFENDANTS GEORGE WU, D.D.S., GEORGE D. WU, DDS DENTAL CORPORATION, and GEORGE D. WU, DDS DENTAL CORPORATION dba CLEARCHOICE DENTAL IMPLANT CENTER’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR COURT DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT is GRANTED; absent an opposition, the court determines the settlement of $45,000 was made in good faith. (A proposed order has been filed.)

Background

This is a dental/professional malpractice case arising from a dental implant surgery.

On December 4, 2023, Plaintiff Hoori Hagopian filed suit against Defendants GEORGE WU, DDS, an individual; GEORGE WU, DDS, INC.; KENNETH BROWN, DDS, an individual; KENNETH BROWN, DDS, INC.; CLEARCHOICE DENTAL IMPLANTS WEST COVINA; CLEARCHOICE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; AND CLEARCHOICE HOLDINGS, LLC.

On January 4, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed and CLEARCHOICEMANAGEMENTSERVICES, LLC and CLEARCHOICE HOLDINGS, LLC. That same day, Defendants GEORGE WU, D.D.S., GEORGE D. WU, DDS DENTAL CORPORATION (erroneously sued herein as GEORGE WU, DDS, INC.), and GEORGE D. WU, DDS DENTAL CORPORATION dba CLEARCHOICE DENTAL IMPLANT CENTER (erroneously sued herein as CLEARCHOICE DENTAL IMPLANTS WEST COVINA) filed their answer.

On March 18, 2024, DEFENDANTS, KENNETH BROWN, DDS, AND K.R. BROWN DDS CORP'S (ERRONEOUSLY SUED HEREIN AS KENNETH BROWN, DDS, INC.) filed their answer to the complaint.

On October 29, 2024, the parties attended a CMC. According to the minute order, “Post-Mediation Status Conference is scheduled for 05/27/25 at 09:00 AM in Department O at Pomona Courthouse South. Mediation is to occur before the next hearing date.”

On March 24, 2025, DEFENDANTS GEORGE WU, D.D.S., GEORGE D. WU, DDS DENTAL CORPORATION, and GEORGE D. WU, DDS DENTAL CORPORATION dba CLEARCHOICE DENTAL IMPLANT CENTER’S (hereinafter, “Settling Defendants”) filed the instant motion.

On April 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a status report re: mediation per court order. According to the report, Counsel for Brown emailed Plaintiff’s counsel on 4/10/25 that “…the only authority that has since been provided, or will be provided, is authority for a waiver of costs/malicious prosecution in exchange for a dismissal with prejudice such that mediation would not be beneficial for the parties and needlessly run up costs on both sides.” With that, Plaintiff’s Counsel states that no mediation has taken place and no agreement to mediate has been reached.

Discussion

Plaintiff has agreed to settle its case against the Settling Defendants for $45,000.00 (“Settlement”). The settlement agreement between Plaintiff and the Settling Defendants of all claims related to the subject incident against the Settling Defendants was not memorialized into a written settlement agreement but for the attached Release of all claims against the Settling Defendants in exchange of the payments is set forth in the Release. (See Motion, Ex. C, pp. 39-41 of 44 of PDF.)

As explained in the motion, Defendant Kenneth Brown, D.D.S. performed the surgical procedures on Plaintiff, and Defendant Dr. Wu performed the prosthodontic procedures on Plaintiff.  (Motion p. 5.) Four implants were placed in the upper arch and four implants were placed in the lower arch. The implant in the area of tooth No. 4 was removed and subsequently replaced.  Plaintiff is alleging the implant in the No. 4 position was improperly placed and caused an oroantral fistula which required several corrective surgeries.  Plaintiff is also alleging bilateral numbness in her lower lip and chin areas.  Plaintiff was not happy with the design issues and the permanent prostheses were never placed in her mouth.

Courts have long recognized that there is no precise way to measure good faith of a settlement with one of several tortfeasors. (See North Country Contractor’s Association v. Touchstone Ins. Servo (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1095 [while precision is difficult or impossible in establishing the appropriate amount of settlement, “an educated guess is the best a judge can do when deciding whether a settlement is made in good faith.”].) In determining whether a settlement is within the ballpark of the settling defendants’ proportional share of liability, the court should weigh various factors, known as the Tech-Bilt factors as articulated in the seminal case of Tech Bilt, Inc. vs. Woodward Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.) However, the Court is not required to weigh the Tech-Bilt factors when a good faith motion is uncontested. In City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1985) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, the Appellate Court specifically held that:

Of the hundreds of motions for good faith determination presented for trial court approval each year, the overwhelming majority are unopposed and granted summarily by the trial court. At the time of filing in many cases, the moving party does not know if a contest will develop. If each motion required a full recital by declaration or affidavit setting forth a complete factual response to all of the underlying Tech-Bilt factors, literally thousands of attorney hours would be consumed, and inch-thick motions would have to be read and considered by trial courts in an exercise which would waste the valuable judicial and legal time and a client's resources. It must also be remembered that Tech-Bilt was decided on a contested basis. We are unaware of any reported decision which has reversed an uncontested good faith determination and we, therefore, conclude that only when the good faith nature of a settlement is disputed, it is incumbent upon the trial court to consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors. That is to say, when no one objects, the bare bones motion sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is sufficient. (Id. at p. 1261.)

Consequently, according to Grand Terrace, when an Application for Good Faith Settlement is uncontested, the court need not weigh the Tech-Bilt factors. With that, absent an opposition to prove the absence of good faith, the court grants the motion.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted.