Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV24329, Date: 2023-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV24329    Hearing Date: January 24, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. and Abad P&D Service’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On June 26, 2020, Plaintiff Daniel Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants FedEx Corporation (“FedEx”), Anthony Edward Marquez (“Marquez”), Ryan May (“May”), and 2^nd Marketing, LLC., (“2nd”) for motor vehicle negligence, general negligence, and negligent hiring and supervision. On July 27, 2020, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (“FedEx Ground”). On October 6, 2020, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendants Abad P&D Services (“Abad”), Ralyx Capital, Inc. (“Ralyx”), and CPR Home Solutions Inc. (“CPR”).

May filed his answer on July 10, 2020. Plaintiff dismissed FedEx without prejudice on September 15, 2020. Abad filed its answer on November 20, 2020. FedEx Ground filed its answer on February 22, 2021.

On April 15, 2021, FedEx Ground and Abad (“Moving Defendants”) filed a Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement with Plaintiff to be heard on September 28, 2021. On September 9, 2021, the Court stayed the case in its entirety, pending ruling on 2nd's Appeal of the Court’s ruling on 2nd's Motion to Compel Arbitration. At that time, the hearing on the Motion for Determination of Good Faith Motion was continued to March 28, 2022. The hearing was continued again to January 24, 2023.

There is no current trial date scheduled.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Moving Defendants request the Court find their settlement with Plaintiff is in good faith.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 887.6(a)(2) states that “[i]n the alternative, a settling party may give notice of settlement to all parties and to the court, together with an application for determination of good faith settlement and a proposed order. The application shall indicate the settling parties, and the basis, terms, and amount of the settlement. The notice, application, and proposed order shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by personal service. Proof of service shall be filed with the court. Within 25 days of the mailing of the notice, application, and proposed order, or within 20 days of personal service, a nonsettling party may file a notice of motion to contest the good faith of the settlement. If none of the nonsettling parties files a motion within 25 days of mailing of the notice, application, and proposed order, or within 20 days of personal service, the court may approve the settlement. The notice by a nonsettling party shall be given in the manner provided in subdivision (b) of Section 1005. However, this paragraph shall not apply to settlements in which a confidentiality agreement has been entered into regarding the case or the terms of the settlement.” The statute further clarifies that the party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.

CCP § 877 states “[w]here a release, dismissal with or without prejudice, or a covenant not to sue or not to enforce judgment is given in good faith before verdict or judgment to one or more of a number of tortfeasors claimed to be liable for the same tort, or to one or more other co-obligors mutually subject to contribution rights, it shall have the following effect: (a) It shall not discharge any other such party from liability unless its terms so provide, but it shall reduce the claims against the others in the amount stipulated by the release, the dismissal or the covenant, or in the amount of the consideration paid for it, whichever is the greater. (b) It shall discharge the party to whom it is given from all liability for any contribution to any other parties.”

In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499, the California Supreme Court identified the following nonexclusive factors courts are to consider in determining if a settlement is in good faith under section 877.6: “a rough approximation of plaintiffs' total recovery and the settlor's 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.  Other relevant considerations include the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants, as well as the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.”

DISCUSSION

The case arises out of a motor vehicle accident in which a FedEx delivery truck operated by an Abad employee was legally parked, with his hazard lights on, on the right side of a lane to make a delivery. Marquez then crashed his vehicle into the rear of the subject truck, injuring passenger Plaintiff during the incident.

Recovery and Proportionate Liability  

Moving Defendants and Plaintiff have agreed to a settlement of $125,000.00. Given that the subject truck, which is the only avenue of liability for Moving Defendants, was legally parked and was rear ended by another Defendant, Moving Defendants liability is minor, if existent. Currently, Plaintiff’s special damages are limited to $32,463.38. Given that the settlement is worth at least four times the most recent special damages calculation, the Court finds this is more than fair in response to Moving Defendants proportionate liability.

Allocation of Settlement  

Plaintiff is the only plaintiff to this action; the entire settlement will be allocated to her.

Financial considerations   

Moving Defendants did not provide any information as to financial considerations other than indicating they are not insolvent defendants settling for insurance policy liability.

Collusion or Fraud  

There is no indication of collusion or fraud. 

Conclusion  

The Court finds that Moving Defendant have satisfied the Tech-Bilt factors. Although Moving Defendants did not provide information as to their financial considerations, Moving Defendants liability appears to be minor at most. Moving Defendants were not the cause of accident. Furthermore, the settlement amount more than exceeds the current special damages total. The Court approves Moving Defendants’ motion. 

CONCLUSION

Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. and Abad P&D Service’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED. The Court dismisses all pending and future claims against Moving Defendants, as well as any cross-complaints for equitable indemnity.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.