Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV25751, Date: 2024-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25751    Hearing Date: April 5, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On August 10, 2022, Plaintiffs Manual Perfecto Valdez and Jose Perfecto Valdez filed this action against various defendants arising from an auto accident that occurred on August 13, 2020 on Interstate 5 in Los Angeles. The accident occurred when a vehicle owned by Bekins A-1 Movers, Inc. and driven by Jorge Salcido collided with Plaintiffs’ vehicle. The Bekins vehicle allegedly made an unsafe lane change after colliding with another vehicle driven by Moises Medina and owned by Mayelyn Swayze. Plaintiffs also claim damages from being rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Mario Ulloa and owned by Maria Ulloa.

            On December 12, 2023, Defendant Swayze filed the instant motion for determination of good faith settlement. There is no opposition to the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 governs the procedure for determining whether a settlement was made in good faith. The statute provides that a settling party may file an application for determination of good faith settlement by indicating the settling parties and the basis, terms, and amount of the settlement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(2).) The issue of good faith may be determined by the Court based on affidavits filed with the application and other evidence presented at the hearing. (Id., § 877.6, subd. (b).) A determination of good faith by the Court bars any other joint tortfeasor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault. (Id., § 877.6, subd. (c).)

In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499, the California Supreme Court concluded that a number of factors must be taken into account in assessing a settlement’s good faith under Section 877.6, including: (1) a rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability, (2) the amount paid in settlement, (3) the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, (4) a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial, (5) the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants, and (6) the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of non-settling defendants. These factors are not exhaustive and may not apply in all cases. (Dole Food Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 894, 909.) Further, “[p]ractical considerations require that [their] evaluation be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement.” (Ibid.)

Where a settlement’s good faith is contested, the moving party must make a showing that the Tech-Bilt factors are satisfied. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.) But “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.” (Ibid.)

DISCUSSION

            As a result of mediation, Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with Defendants Swayze and Medina wherein Plaintiffs would each receive $72,000. (Stone Decl. ¶¶ 13-14.) Defense counsel’s uncontested declaration demonstrates that the agreement resulted from arms-length negotiations overseen by a neutral mediator. (Id., ¶¶ 22-23.) Furthermore, the settlement amount is within the ballpark of Defendants’ potential liability. (Id., ¶ 22, 24.) There is no indication of bad faith or collusion. Therefore, the Court finds that the settlement was entered into in good faith.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant Mayelyn Swayze’s motion for determination of good faith settlement is GRANTED.