Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 19STCV46911, Date: 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV46911    Hearing Date: August 4, 2022    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT 3

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant Southern California Edison

RESPONDING PARTY:       N/A

Defendant SCE’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement and to File a Document Under Seal

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion. No opposition was filed.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Ji Yang Ma, Alexander Young Wong, Yoshio Sera, John Fawzi Halaka, Kar Lok Fu, and Guangyuan Li filed this premises liability action against Defendants JCC Venture LLC and Southern California Edison (“SCE”) on December 31, 2019.

Plaintiffs and SCE have entered into a settlement, and SCE now moves for an order determining that the settlement was made in good faith pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that, on noticed motion, “[a]ny 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.” “A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (c).) 

In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499, the California Supreme Court identified various factors courts are to consider in determining if a settlement is in good faith under section 877.6. But when the good faith nature of a settlement is uncontested, the court need not consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.) “[W]hen no one objects, the barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is sufficient.” (Ibid.)

DISCUSSION

Here, the court finds that the motion describes the background of this case, details the nature of the proposed settlements, and provides sufficient reasoning as to why the settlement was each reached in good faith.

This lawsuit arose out of an electrical fire that occurred on November 22, 2018 at a commercial building in Alhambra where Plaintiffs were tenants. Plaintiffs allege that SCE negligently energized power to a building that had been burned, causing a secondary fire to destroy the previously burned property. (Karrer Decl., ¶ 3.) At deposition, Alhambra Fire Department Battalion Chief Mike Brown testified that power to the property was shut off during the first fire, that there was no reason to believe that the power did not remain off during the second fire, and that there was no reason to believe that the fires were caused by arson. (Karrer Decl., ¶ 5.) Based on that testimony, SCE engaged in arms-length settlement discussions with Plaintiffs. (Karrer Decl., ¶¶ 6-8, Ex. A [filed conditionally under seal].) Although the settlement is confidential, counsel for SCE has disclosed the settlement amount to all parties pursuant to a joint stipulation. (Karrer Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. B.) To that end, SCE also requests an order to seal the settlement.

Generally, court records are presumed to be open unless confidentiality is required by law. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(c).) If the presumption of access applies, the court may order that a record be filed under seal “if it expressly finds facts that establish:  (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)

A “contractual obligation not to disclose can constitute an overriding interest within the meaning of rule [2.550 (formerly 243.10(d))].” (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283.) The court also finds that the overriding interest of the parties’ to adhere to their contractual obligation supports sealing the settlement agreement, and that a substantial probability exists that the interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed. The proposed sealing is “narrowly tailored” insofar as the entire settlement agreement is subject to the confidentiality provision. Further, there is no less restrictive means to achieve the overriding interest. Therefore, the court finds that there is good cause to seal the settlement agreement.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court grants SCE’s motion for determination of good faith settlement is granted.

The court also grants SCE’s motion to seal the settlement agreement attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Ryan T. Karrer.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.551(e), the court directs the clerk to file this order, maintain the record ordered sealed in a secure manner, and clearly identify the record as sealed by this order. The court declines to order any sealing of the register of actions, any other court records, or any other records relating to this case.  The court further orders that no persons other than the court is authorized to inspect the sealed record.

SCE is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  August 4, 2022

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court