Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV44982, Date: 2022-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44982    Hearing Date: December 21, 2022    Dept: 28

Motion for a Determination of a Good Faith Settlement

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.  No opposition or reply papers have been filed.

BACKGROUND

            On November 24, 2020, Plaintiff Mohamed Rada (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Jose Barrios (“Barrios”), Maria Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”), and Aparajito Sen (“Sen”) (erroneously sued as “Sen Aparajito”) (collectively “Defendants”), alleging the sole cause of action of negligence. The complaint alleges that Defendants were negligent in operating their respective vehicles, resulting in a multi-vehicle collision.

            On January 15, 2021, Rodriguez filed a cross-complaint against Barrios and Sen for indemnity and contribution.

            On February 5, 2021, Sen filed the operative first amended cross-complaint against Barrios and Rodriguez for equitable indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.

            On November 17, 2021, Barrios filed a separate complaint under case no. 21STCV42415 against Sen, Rodriguez and Eligio A. Rodriguez for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

            On March 23, 2022, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to consolidate the underlying action with case no. 21STCV42415

            On October 12, 2022, Sen filed a motion for determination of a good faith settlement pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6. No opposition has been filed.

            Trial is set for May 17, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUEST

            Sen asks the Court to find that his settlement with Plaintiff to have been entered in good faith.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (a)(1), provides, in relevant part, that, on noticed motion, “[a]ny party to an action wherein it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff . . . and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors . . . .”  “A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (c).)  Although a determination that a settlement was in good faith does not discharge any other party from liability, “it shall reduce the claims against the others in the amount stipulated” by the settlement.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 877, subd. (a).)

“The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).)

In City of Grand View Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261, the court provided the following guidance regarding a motion for a good faith settlement determination:

This court notes that of the hundreds of motions for good faith determination presented for trial court approval each year, the overwhelming majority are unopposed and granted summarily by the trial court.  At the time of filing in many cases, the moving party does not know if a contest will develop.  If each motion required a full recital by declaration or affidavit setting forth a complete factual response to all of the Tech-Bilt factors, literally thousands of attorney hours would be consumed and inch-thick motions would have to be read and considered by trial courts in an exercise which would waste valuable judicial and legal time and clients’ resources. . . . That is to say, 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.

If the good faith settlement is contested, section 877.6, subdivision (d), sets forth a workable ground rule for the hearing by placing the burden of proving the lack of good faith on the contesting party.  Once there is a showing made by the settlor of the settlement, the burden of proof on the issue of good faith shifts to the nonsettlor who asserts that the settlement was not made in good faith.  If contested, declarations by the nonsettlor should be filed which in many cases could require the moving party to file responsive counterdeclarations to negate the lack of good faith asserted by the nonsettling contesting party.

(192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1260-1261 [citation omitted].)

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.”

The evaluation of whether a settlement was made in good faith is required to “be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement.”  (Tech-Bilt, Inc., supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 499.)  “‘[A] defendant’s settlement figure must not be grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person, at the time of the settlement, would estimate the settling defendant’s liability to be.’ [Citation.]”  (Ibid.)

“The party asserting the lack of good faith, who has the burden of proof on that issue (§ 877.6, subd. (d)), should be permitted to demonstrate, if he can, that the settlement is so far ‘out of the ballpark’ in relation to these factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute.  Such a demonstration would establish that the proposed settlement was not a ‘settlement made in good faith’ within the terms of section 877.6.”  (Id. at pp. 499-500.)

“[A] court not only looks at the alleged tortfeasor's potential liability to the plaintiff, but it must also consider the culpability of the tortfeasor vis-à-vis other parties alleged to be responsible for the same injury.  Potential liability for indemnity to a nonsettling defendant is an important consideration for the trial court in determining whether to approve a settlement by an alleged tortfeasor.  [Citation.]”  (TSI Seismic Tenant Space, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 159, 166.)

DISCUSSION

On January 14, 2022, Plaintiff agreed to discharge Sen of liability for Plaintiff’s bodily injuries for $7,500.00.  (Thompson Decl., ¶ 8, Exh. A.)  Plaintiff complains of soft-tissue damage to his neck and back and has incurred $17,045 in undiscounted special medical damages.  (Motion at pg. 5; Thompson Decl., ¶ 6.)  During Plaintiff’s deposition on June 23, 2021, it was discovered that Plaintiff felt 3 distinctive rear-end impacts that decreased in severity. (Thompson Decl. ¶ 5.) Thus, the impact of Sen’s vehicle was the least impactful because it was the last one in the chain of collision. (Motion at pg. 5.)  Moreover, it is indicated that Plaintiff would be willing to settle his claims against Defendants for a joint settlement of $35,000, where Sen would contribute $10,000. (Motion at pg. 3; Thompson Decl. ¶ 7.)

The Court finds that the settlement between Plaintiff and Sen was entered in good faith under the Tech-Bilt, Inc. factors. First, the instant motion is unopposed. Second, not all factors have to weigh in favor of good faith, and some may be more relevant to the determination than others, depending on the case.  Here, based on Plaintiff’s claimed medical damages and the fact that the impact of Sen’s vehicle was the least impactful, Sen’s proportionate liability for Plaintiff’s injuries is less than the nonsettling defendants, and as a result, Sen is the less culpable torfeasor as it pertains to Plaintiff’s injuries. (Motion at pg. 5; Thompson Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, 7.) Consequently, the proposed settlement is not disproportionate. Finally, there is no evidence of the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants. (Motion at pg. 6; Thompson Decl. ¶ 9.) 

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

Sen ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Sen 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.