Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22STCV16402, Date: 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16402    Hearing Date: March 1, 2023    Dept: 74

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – CENTRAL District

Department 74

MOVING PARTIES: Defendants Elim Healthcare, Inc. and Jean Kim

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Yong Cha Pak, by and through her Successor in Interest, Sun Yong Pak, and Sun Yong Pak

Application to File Under Seal

The court considered the moving papers in connection with this application.  No opposition has been filed.

BACKGROUND

            On May 17, 2022, Plaintiffs Yong Cha Pak, by and through her Successor in Interest, Sun Yong Pak, and Sun Yong Pak (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Elim Healthcare, Inc., Jean Kim, and Kemal Louis Kemal for five causes of action: (1) elder abuse; (2) unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) negligence; and (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

            Plaintiffs have entered into a confidential settlement agreement in which Plaintiffs will accept a confidential sum in exchange for a dismissal with prejudice as a full and final resolution of their claims against Defendants Elim Healthcare, Inc. and Jean Kim (collectively “settling

Defendants”).

            On November 28, 2022, settling Defendants filed an application under CCP §§877 and 877.6 to determine that settling Defendants and Plaintiffs entered into their settlement in good faith.

            On December 1, 2022, settling Defendants filed an application to place the Confidential Settlement Declaration of Tiffany Le Melle, Esq. under Court seal.  The application is made under CRC 2.550 and 2.551.

LEGAL STANDARD

¿¿

            Under CRC 2.550, “The Court may order that a record be filed under seal only 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 exists to achieve the overriding interest.”  (CRC 2.550(d).)  

            If the record is transmitted in paper form, it must be put in a sealed envelope clearly identified as “CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL” and lodged with the court. (CRC 2.551(d)(1) and (2).)  A cover sheet must be affixed to the envelope containing all information required on a caption page under rule 2.111 and stating that the enclosed record is subject to a motion or an application to file the record under seal.  (CRC 2.551(d)(3).) 

DISCUSSION

            The Confidential Settlement Declaration of Tiffany Le Melle and defense counsel’s communications with counsel for each of the co-defendants have informed the parties and the court of the settlement amount.  However, the settlement agreement also includes a provision that requires that the settlement amount remain confidential between the parties.  To give effect to the confidentiality provision of the settlement agreement and allow the settlement to be finalized between the settling parties, the settling Defendants requests that the confidential declaration be placed under seal.  (Motion, p. 3; Declaration of Le Melle ¶ 4.)  The court agrees.

            The confidential declaration has been lodged with the court under CRC 2.551(d) by lodging the declaration to be sealed in an envelope and labeled “CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL.”  (Motion, p. 3.)  Additionally, a cover sheet has been attached pursuant to rule 2.111.  (Ibid.)  Plaintiffs did not file an opposition.   

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the application to file the Confidential Settlement Declaration of Tiffany Le Melle under seal is granted.

The settling Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 1, 2023

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – CENTRAL District

Department 74

MOVING PARTIES: Defendants Elim Healthcare, Inc. and Jean Kim

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Yong Cha Pak, by and through her Successor in Interest, Sun Yong Pak, and Sun Yong Pak

Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

The court considered the moving papers in connection with this application.  A statement of non-opposition was filed.

BACKGROUND

            On May 17, 2022, Plaintiffs Yong Cha Pak, by and through her Successor in Interest, Sun Yong Pak, and Sun Yong Pak (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Elim Healthcare, Inc., Jean Kim, and Kemal Louis Kemal for five causes of action: (1) elder abuse; (2) unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) negligence; and (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

            Plaintiffs have entered into a confidential settlement agreement in which Plaintiffs will accept a confidential sum in exchange for a dismissal with prejudice as a full and final resolution of their claims against Defendants Elim Healthcare, Inc. and Jean Kim (collectively “settling

Defendants”).

            On November 28, 2022, settling Defendants filed an application to determine that the settling Defendants and Plaintiffs have entered into a good faith settlement under CCP §§877 and 877.6.

            On February 14, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a non-opposition to settling Defendants’ application for determination of good faith settlement.

LEGAL STANDARD

¿¿

            “Any party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors . . . shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more of the alleged tortfeasors.” (Code Civ. Proc., §877.6, subd. (a)(1).)  “The determination as to whether a settlement is in good faith is a matter left to the discretion of the trial court.” (Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1349.)

            The trial court’s determination of good faith is based on “a number of factors,” including total recovery and proportionate liability, “the amount paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial.” ¿(Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates¿(1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499 (Tech-Bilt); see also Far West Financial Corp. v. D&S Co.¿(1988) 46 Cal.3d 796, 816, fn. 16 [expanding on Tech-Bilt factors].)¿ Nevertheless, “when 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.” (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.) 

DISCUSSION

            The settlement appears fair and reasonable.  The settling Defendants agree to pay Plaintiffs a confidential amount in exchange for a dismissal with prejudice of the settling Defendants.  (Declaration of Le Melle ¶ 4.)  The settling Defendants take the position that there is little to no liability as to them.  (Le Melle Decl., ¶ 5.)  The settlement amount considers the nature and extent of Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, the litigation expenses that would be incurred, and the recognition that a defendant should pay less in settlement than if it were found liable at trial.  (Le Melle Decl., ¶ 9.)  Also, the settlement considers the disputed liability, the weaknesses in Plaintiff’s case, Plaintiff’s claimed damages, and Plaintiff’s representation. (Le Melle Decl., ¶ 11.)  Furthermore, Plaintiffs filed a non-opposition to settling Defendants’ application for determination of good faith settlement.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court grants settling Defendants’ Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement under CCP §§877 and 877.6.  

Settling Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 1, 2023

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court