Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case 19SMCV01950 2023-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19SMCV01950, Date: 2023-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SMCV01950 Hearing Date: April 3, 2023 Dept: 207

Background

Plaintiffs Paul Hendifar and Jason Hendifar (collectively “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against several Defendants, including Lion Windows & Doors (“Lion”) alleging construction defects in real property they own in Venice, California. Lion has reached a settlement with Plaintiffs and now moves the Court for a determination that its settlement was entered into in good faith pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6. Lion’s motion is unopposed.

Legal Standard

The Court must approve any settlement entered into by less than all joint tortfeasors or co-obligors. (C.C.P. § 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.” (C.C.P. § 877.6(c).) The non-settling tortfeasors or obligors bear the burden of demonstrating the absence of good faith in the settlement. (C.C.P. § 877.6(d).)

In order to demonstrate a lack of good faith, the non-settling party must show 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).) “Another key factor is the settling tortfeasor's potential liability for indemnity to joint tortfeasors.” (Long Beach Memorial Medical Center v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 865, 873 [as modified (Apr. 1, 2009].)

These factors will be evaluated accordingly to what information is available at the time of settlement. (Ibid.)

Analysis

Lion supplied and installed panel windows and sliding glass doors for the subject properties. Plaintiffs’ primary claim regarding these windows and doors concerns allegations of water intrusion which has caused damage to other components of the properties, including flooring and drywall. Plaintiffs’ claims for construction defect extend beyond the work provided by Lion. Plaintiffs have calculated the cost to repair the properties total over $3.5 million. Plaintiffs have calculated the cost of repair the issues relating to the windows and doors to be $831,382. Lion asserts these costs would relate to multiple trades who performed work on the properties, including the general contractor and subcontractors responsible for stucco and tile. (Cassell Decl. at ¶6.)

A partial global settlement of Plaintiffs’ claims was reached after a two-day mediation with Hon. Jonathan H. Cannon. (Lawler Decl. at ¶7.) This settlement included a contribution of $200,000 from Lion to resolve Plaintiffs’ claims against it. Lion disputes liability for those claims. (Id. at ¶8.) Lion asserts the evidence of defects relating to its own work is thin and instead has implicated the work of other entities. Lion also argues the cost to remove and replace every window and door it installed at the properties would only cost $70,000-$90,000. The builder/general contractor, Defendant and Cross-Complainant Rockport Construction, Inc., allocated 7.6% of Plaintiffs’ cost of repair to work performed by Lion. Lion’s $200,000 settlement contribution is approximately 5.7% of the cost of repair. (Cassell Decl. at ¶13.)

Based on these undisputed representations, the Court finds Lion has shown its $200,000 settlement contribution is a reasonable approximation of its proportionate share of liability on Plaintiffs’ claims. The Court finds the remaining Tech-Bilt factors are satisfied as well. While there are two plaintiffs in this action, there do not appear to be any concerns regarding the allocation of settlement funds between multiple plaintiffs. The Court also finds no evidence of collusion, fraud, or other tortious conduct on behalf of Plaintiffs or Lion, and the Court notes no other party has opposed this motion or otherwise suggested any such fraud or collusion is present here.

The Court finds the settlement between Lion and Plaintiffs was entered into in good faith under Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6. Lion’s motion is GRANTED.

Conclusion

Defendant Lion Windows & Doors’ motion for determination of good faith settlement is GRANTED. Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6(c) all claims by any other party, or any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor against Lion Windows & Doors based upon equitable or comparative contribution, partial or comparative indemnity, implied indemnity, equitable indemnity, or otherwise based in any way on comparative negligence or comparative fault, are dismissed.