Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCV00257, Date: 2025-03-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV00257 Hearing Date: March 11, 2025 Dept: 76
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants committed elder abuse as care custodians of decent, who died from COVID-19 while in Defendant’s care.
The parties settled and Defendant St. John of God Retirement and Care Center moves for a determination of good faith settlement pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code, § 887.6.
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant St. John of God Retirement and Care Center’s motion for a determination of good faith settlement pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code, § 887.6 is DENIED. There appears to be no grounds for the application of section 887.6, as there are no alleged joint tortfeasors, and thus there is no basis for (or reason to) declare a good faith settlement.
ANALYSIS
Motion For Determination of Good Faith Settlement
Discussion
The parties settled and Defendant St. John of God Retirement and Care Center moves for a determination of good faith settlement pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code, § 887.6.
Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6(a)(1) provides:
Any party to an action in
which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors
on a contract debt shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith
of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more
alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors, upon giving notice in the manner provided
in subdivision (b) of Section 1005. . . .
(Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6(a)(1)[bold emphasis added].)
At a minimum, a party seeking
confirmation of a settlement must explain to the court and to all other parties:
who has settled with whom, the dollar amount of each settlement, if any settlement
is allocated, how it is allocated between issues and/or parties, what nonmonetary
consideration has been included, and how the parties to the settlement value the
nonmonetary consideration.
(Alcal Roofing & Insulation v. Superior Court (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1121, 1129.)
The party asserting the lack of good faith has the burden of proof on that issue. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6(d).) The Supreme Court has set forth several factors to consider when determining the good faith nature of a settlement: 1) rough approximate of plaintiff’s total recovery, 2) the settlor’s proportionate liability, 3) amount paid in settlement, 4) allocation of settlement proceeds among the plaintiffs, 4) recognition that a settler should pay less in settlement that he would if he were found liable after trial, 5) financial condition and insurance policy limits of the settling defendants, 6) the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortuous conduct aimed to injury the interests of non-settling defendants. (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.) In assessing the good faith of any settlement, the trial court must properly consider whether the proposed settlement was within the reasonable range of the settling tortfeasor’s total liability, taking into account the settling tortfeasor’s potential liability for indemnity. (Far West Financial Corp. v. D&S Co. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 796, 814-815 [bold emphasis added].)
Another key factor is the settling tortfeasor’s potential liability for indemnity to joint tortfeasors. (Citation omitted.) The trial court calculates “the culpability of the [settling] tortfeasor vis-à-vis other parties alleged to be responsible for the same injury. Potential liability for indemnity to a nonsettling defendant is an important consideration for the trial court in determining whether to approve a settlement by an alleged tortfeasor. [Citation.]” (Citation omitted.)
(Long Beach Memorial Medical Center v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 865, 873 [bold emphasis added].)
Here, Defendant St. John of God Retirement and Care Center is the only alleged tortfeasor. Nominal Defendant Lauren Gutierrez is alleged to be the granddaughter of decedent. (2AC, ¶ 7.) There is no allegation that Guiterrez is a joint tortfeasor or co-obligor with Defendant St. John vis-à-vis the elder abuse of decedent. As such, Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6 is inapplicable to the situation at hand.
“The law neither does nor requires idle acts.” (Civ. Code, § 3532.) “ A court will not exercise a power for no material or useful purpose (Citation omitted.)” (Reagan v. Bahrs (1909) 11 Cal. App. 234, 237.)
As such, the motion for determination
of good faith settlement is DENIED.