Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV47044, Date: 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV47044    Hearing Date: February 3, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendants Indira Marrero and Rafael Angel Alamorodriguez’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

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

BACKGROUND

On December 9, 2020, Plaintiffs Erica Fajardo (“Erica”) and Jaime Fajardo (“Jamie”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), Indira Marrero (“Marrero”), Rafael Angel Alamorodriguez (“Alamorodriguez”) for wrongful death.

On January 14, 2021, the City filed an answer. On January 15, 2021, Marrero and Alamorodriguez filed an answer.

On December 16, 2022, Marrero and Alamorodriguez (“Moving Defendants”) filed a Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement with Plaintiff to be heard on February 3, 2023.

There is no 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 Marrero, while driving Alamorodriguez’s vehicle, made a left turn and struck Erica and Decedent, who were walking through a crosswalk. Marrero allegedly did not see Erica and Decedent crossing when she made her turn. Decedent passed away as a result of the incident. Plaintiffs also bring claims against the City for dangerous condition of public property.

Recovery and Proportionate Liability  

Moving Defendants and Plaintiffs have agreed to a settlement of $30,000.00. Moving Defendants have not provided the Court with the information required to determine whether the settlement would be one made in good faith.  The Court cannot determine what Plaintiff’s damages are, what percentage of the damages this settlement presents, or what Moving Defendants’ percentage of liability is. 

Allocation of Settlement  

Plaintiffs will receive the entirety of the settlement. Erica sustained physical injuries, while both Plaintiffs, as Decedent’s parents, have claim to a wrongful death claim.

Financial considerations   

Moving Defendants do not have any money or assets which can be used to contribute to judgment; the agreed $30,000.00 is based on Moving Defendants’ automobile policy limits.

Collusion or Fraud  

There is no indication of collusion or fraud. 

Conclusion  

The Court finds that Moving Defendants have not satisfied the Tech-Bilt factors. Moving Defendants provided little to no information regarding proportionate liability or requested special damages. The Court has no way of determining whether this settlement was made in good faith without knowledge of liability. The Court denies the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendants Indira Marrero and Rafael Angel Alamorodriguez’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is DENIED.

            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.