Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV00051, Date: 2025-02-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00051    Hearing Date: February 25, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

535 Chalette Drive v. Adams, Case no. 24SMCV00051

Hearing date February 25, 2025

Defendants’ Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Plaintiffs 535 Chalette Drive, LLC and Broukhim sue defendants W. Adams, J. Adams, Forward Beverly Hills Inc., N. Iryami, J. Jacobson and B. Chung for breach of contract arising from alleged failure to disclose defects and a prior lawsuit regarding a property defendants sold to plaintiffs. Defendants Forward Beverly Hills, Inc., N. Iryami, J. Jacobson and B. Chung move for determination of good faith settlement. No opposition was filed.

Defendants request judicial notice of the FAC filed 1/17/24. Judicial notice is proper per Cal. Evid. Code §452(h). GRANTED.

Per Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §877.6 the court may determine, in its discretion, if the settlement between a defendant and plaintiff is in good faith. Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 502; Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1349. Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d 499, sets forth the standards by which the “good faith” of a proposed settlement is determined. The factors include: (1) a rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability; (2) amount paid in settlement; (3) allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (4) a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than if were found liable after a trial; (5) the financial condition and insurance policy limits of the settling defendant; and (6) whether there is the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of non-settling defendants.

Plaintiffs purchased the property 11/23/21. Decl. Justin exh. 2. Defendants served as plaintiffs’ agents in purchasing the property. Plaintiffs filed the FAC 1/17/24, claiming defendants failed to timely provide disclosure statements and property questionnaires to plaintiff. Decl. Justin exh. 1.

Plaintiffs will receive $25,000 from moving defendants. Decl. Leff para. 2. Defendants assert complete defenses under Pagano v. Krohn (1997) 60 Cal App.4th 1, 3 (holding once the buyer had "essential facts" in his knowledge his agent has no duty to elaborate by providing further details). Defendants argue the settlement is in good faith and represents a reasonable recovery, given defendants’ limited liability as plaintiffs’ agents.

Given defendants’ limited liability, plaintiffs’ recovery is reasonable. Further, Tech-Bilt, supra, requires an acknowledgment that defendants ought to pay less than they otherwise might at trial. No opposition was filed, and no evidence of bad faith is presented. GRANTED.