Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Baglien vs. Garcia, Date: 2023-07-31 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Patricia Baglien’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement (“Motion”) is DENIED.

Plaintiff brings the Motion based upon an agreed upon $300,000 settlement amount between Plaintiff and defendants George Garcia and Nicole Garcia (“Garcias” together).  Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) alleged some 21 different causes of action (“COA”) against one or both of the Garcias.

In determining whether a settlement is made in “good faith,” a court will typically look at certain factors that are laid out in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499-500 (“Tech-Bilt”).  Additionally, if “there is no substantial evidence to support a critical assumption as to the nature and extent of a settling defendant's liability, then a determination of good faith based upon such assumption is an abuse of discretion.” ‘ “  (Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal. App. 4th 1337, 1350.)  “All affidavits relied upon as probative must state evidentiary facts; they must show facts and circumstances from which the ultimate fact sought to be proved may be deduced by the court. [Citation.] Affidavits or declarations setting forth only conclusions, opinions or ultimate facts are to be held insufficient; even an expert's opinion cannot rise to the dignity of substantial evidence if it is unsubstantiated by facts.”  (Greshko v. Cnty. of Los Angeles (1987) 194 Cal. App. 3d 822, 834.)

Plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence in support of the Motion.  Further, Plaintiffs have not the factors laid out in Tech-Bilt, which include a rough approximately of Plaintiff’s estimated recovery and Garcias’ proportional liability, and Garcias’ financial conditions. 

As noted, the TAC alleges 21 COA against Garcias.  Three of those COA are the only COA alleged against non-settling defendants County of Orange, Nicholas Doty, Steve Hortz, and Adewale Olukoju (“County” together), which are COA No. 13 – Ralph Act, COA No. 14 – Bane Act, and COA No. 16 – Battery.  Based upon the allegations of the TAC, if taken as true for purposes of this Motion only, it appears Garcias are directly or indirectly responsively for the bulk of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.  While there is some evidence supporting that one or more of the County defendants were allegedly aware the eviction was not proper at the time it occurred, “but for” the alleged actions of Garcias leading up to (and including participation in) the eviction, County would not have arrived to the property and proceeded to evict Plaintiff.  Garcias also allegedly caused Plaintiff harms by way of a physical assault, employment violations, and the eviction, whereas County only allegedly caused Plaintiff harm by way of the eviction. 

Again, while Plaintiff did not provide any approximation of the estimated recovery and Garcias proportional liability, County did provide evidence that Plaintiff’s most recent Civ. Proc. Code. § 998 offer was for $15 million, which would put the $300,000 settlement at only 2% of the amount demanded by Plaintiff.  This appears to be grossly disproportionate to the COA and damages Plaintiff allegedly incurred by the acts of Garcias.  The $300,000 also apparently comes from Garcias’ homeowners policy, which is well less that the policy limit amount of $1.3 million as the policy apparently does not cover certain COA.  There is no indication Garcias, one of whom is alleged in the TAC to be a medical physician with partial ownership in at least one practice, being unable to contribute some other or additional portion of settlement funds.  Instead, the $300,000 appears to cover only a small amount of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, does not cover all of Plaintiff’s COA against Garcias, and would leave County to potentially pay a larger share of Plaintiff’s damages than Garcias.

As Plaintiff has produced no evidence in support of this Motion and the evidence produced by County suggests the $300,000 is grossly disproportionate to what Garcias estimated liability is, the court cannot determine this settlement was made in good faith.

The Motion is denied.

County to give notice.