Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 25PSCV00062, Date: 2025-04-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25PSCV00062    Hearing Date: April 30, 2025    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

KRESTON ROBERT MERVEILLE’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 877.6 is GRANTED. (A proposed order has been filed.)

Background

This is an assault and battery case.

On January 7, 2025, Plaintiff JULIO CESAR CARILLO NAMBO filed suit against Defendants GALAXY GAS INC., a California Corporation (the “store”); JOHN DOE, an individual (store clerk); KRESTON ROBERT MERVEILLE alleging that in October 2023, while he was a business invite of the store, the store clerk and others attacked and struck him with a wood bat/pole. Plaintiff asserted causes of action (COAs) for:

1.     Assault and Battery

2.     Negligent Hiring, Retention, and Supervision

3.     Negligence

On February 21, 2025, the store filed its answer.

On March 19, 2025, Merveille filed an answer. That same day, Merveille filed a cross-complaint (CC) against the store for:

1.     Indemnification

2.     Apportionment of Fault and

3.     Declaratory Relief

On April 2, 2025, Merveille filed the instant motion. That same day, Plaintiff’s attorney filed a ‘DECLARATION OF ALBERT A.  VILLANEDA, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT KRESTON ROBERT MERVEILLE’S MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT.’

On April 18, 2025, the store filed its answer as to Merveille’s CC.

Discussion

Moving Defendant and Plaintiff have agreed to settle the matter for $100,000. Though still somewhat unclear, it appears that on the subject day, two events unfolded: first, Plaintiff was allegedly attacked at the store and second, while he was crossing the street after the incident, moving Defendant hit Plaintiff with his car; the settlement amount is the full insurance policy limit.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, 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.