Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV14585, Date: 2023-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV14585    Hearing Date: February 24, 2023    Dept: 74

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – CENTRAL District

Department 74

MOVING PARTIES:             Defendant 409 W. 22nd Street, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY:        None

Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

            This is a habitability action. Plaintiffs consist of 53 individuals, including minors, who are tenants of the residential property located at 676 S. Rampart Blvd, Los Angeles, California 90057. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on April 16, 2021. The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on September 28, 2021 against Defendants 409 W. 22^nd Street, LLC and G&D Management & Apartment Building, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of warranty of habitability; (2) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; (3) negligence; (4) breach of contract; (5) nuisance; and (6) unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.

            On April 19, 2022, G&D Management & Apartment Building, LLC was substituted in for DOE 1. On April 26, 2022, Frederick H. Leeds as Trustee of the Frederick H. Leeds Trust was substituted in for DOE 2.

            On October 31, 2022, the following dismissals were entered: (1) Plaintiff Coronado Cruz has dismissed his claims with prejudice against all defendants; and (2) Plaintiffs Carolyn Gonzalez Medina, Kevin Alvarez Queme, minor Liam Alvarez, and minor Nathan Medina have dismissed their claims against Defendant 409 W. 22^nd Street, LLC (hereinafter, “409 LLC”) only as they did not reside at the Subject Property during 409 LLC’s limited ownership.

            On December 13, 2022, 409 LLC filed its motion for determination of good faith settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

The court must approve any settlement entered into by less than all joint tortfeasors or co-obligors. (Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6.) This requirement furthers two sometimes-competing policies: (1) the equitable sharing of costs among the parties at fault, and (2) the encouragement of settlements. (Erreca’s v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1487.) If the settlement is made in good faith, the court “shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor 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 non-settling tortfeasors or obligors bear the burden of demonstrating the absence of good faith in the settlement. (Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6, subd. (d).)

In order to demonstrate a lack of good faith, the non-settling party must show that the settlement is so far “out of the ballpark” as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of Section 877.6.  (Nutrition Now, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 209, 213.)  The court will typically consider: (1) the plaintiff’s (roughly) approximated total recovery; (2) the settlor’s share of liability; (3) the size of the settlement at issue; (4) the distribution of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (5) the usual discount value when plaintiffs settle before trial; (6) the settlor’s financial condition and insurance policy limits; and (7) whether there is evidence of “collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.”  (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499 (Tech-Bilt).)  These factors will be evaluated accordingly to what information is available at the time of settlement.  (Ibid.)

 “When no one objects, the barebones motion which sets forth the ground for good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is sufficient” for the Court to grant a motion for determination of good faith settlement.  (City of Grand Terrace, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d at p. 1261.)  However, “[i]f contested, declarations by the nonsettlor should be filed which in many cases could require the moving party to file responsive counter declarations to negate the lack of good faith asserted by the nonsettling contesting party .” (Ibid.)

DISCUSSION

In this habitability action, Plaintiffs allege that 409 LLC was the proper owner of the subject property from mid-2015 to mid-2018. (FAC ¶ 71.) 409 LLC asks the court to approve its settlement with Plaintiffs entered on October 24, 2022, under which the parties agreed to resolve Plaintiffs’ claim in the amount of $327,000 in exchange for a full release of all claims against 409 LLC. (Pouladian Decl. ¶8.)

            409 LLC contends that the settlement is proportionate to its liability because the allegations are limited against it, covering a period of only three years, and maintains that it adequately maintained the subject property during its period of ownership. (Motion at pg. 7; Pouladian Decl. ¶¶ 9-11.) Thus, the conduct alleged against 409 LLC and the remaining defendant do not overlap. (FAC ¶ 70-71.) Given that 409 LLC has a reasonable argument that its potential liability is minimal, the settlement amount of $327,000.00 is fair and reasonable as agreed to by the parties. Furthermore, no evidence exists of collusion, fraud, or tortuous conduct that would injure the non-settling defendants. (Pouladian Decl. ¶ 12.) And finally, no non-settling party has opposed the motion. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6, subd. (d) [“[t]he party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.”])

Based on the foregoing, the court grants 409 LLC’s motion for determination of good faith settlement.

The court will sign 409 LLC’s proposed order filed on December 13, 2022.

409 LLC is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  February 24, 2023

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court