Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case BC716984 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: BC716984, Date: 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC716984 Hearing Date: October 24, 2022 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Ong et al. v. Cantillano et al., Case No. BC716984

Hearing date October 24, 2022

Defendants Hernandez & Cantillano’s Motion for Good Faith Settlement

The Ong plaintiffs and Lagin sued for injuries sustained when the Hernandez vehicle, driven by Hernandez’s daughter Cantillano, who (per stipulation) had a BAC significantly in excess of the legal limit, struck Maroli Ong and Lagin.

Cantillano has a 25/50 policy with State Farm, which is being tendered. The motion states the amounts to be paid as $52,000 to the Ong plaintiffs, $25,000 to Lagin, a total of $72,000. This is in excess of the policy limits. Hernandez and Cantillano seek a determination of good faith settlement as to the Ongs and Lagin, arguing inability to pay.

“[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.” Torres v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 499, 509. 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. Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499-500.

The factors a court should look to in evaluating “good faith” within the meaning of CCP § 877.6 are (1) a rough approximation of plaintiff’s total recovery and the settler’s proportionate liability, (2) the amount paid in settlement, (3) the allocation of settlement proceeds among the various plaintiffs, (4) the financial condition of the settling defendants and their ability to respond to a judgment against them, (5) the existence of collusive, fraudulent, or other tortious conduct by the settling parties in connection with the negotiation and construction of the settlement which is injurious to the interests of the non-settling parties. Abbot Ford, Inc. v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 858, 874 citing Tech-Bilt 38 Cal.3d 488. While the settling party is not initially compelled to make a showing of the Tech-Bilt factors in bringing the motion or application for good faith settlement, once the settlement is attacked as lacking good faith the settling party is required to file counter-affidavits showing the settlement is “in the ballpark.” See Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal. App. 4th 1337, 1350 n. 6.

Cantillano and Hernandez agreed to pay Lagin $25,000.00 and Plaintiffs $52,000.00 total in satisfaction of all claims and a dismissal with prejudice of the Complaint and Cross-Complaint against them, subject to a determination that the settlement is in good faith under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 and barring any existing or potential claims against Cantillano and Hernandez for equitable indemnity, implied indemnity, contribution, or declaratory relief; and the entry of an order granting a petition for approval of the compromise of Neil Ong’s (a minor) settlement.

Hernandez’s liability is limited to $25,000 pursuant to Vehicle Code section 17151. Cantillano and Hernandez claim they have no assets with which to pay a judgment above the policy limit and point to Schmid v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1244, where the court found the defendant’s lack of assets to be controlling on the issue of good faith.

Defendants City and Lagin argue the court has no basis to determine whether the settlement approximates the proportionate liability of the settlors, including considerations of fault. The court is aware the parties have stipulated that Cantillano’s BAC was .18, and she has taken full responsibility for causing the collision. Deposition of Cantillano, Volume 2, pages 212-217, Exh. A; Nebenzahl Decl. ¶ 2; Stipulation re BAC, Exh. B; Nebenzahl Decl. ¶ 3. Ong’s claimed past medical bills are $1.5 million, with significant future claimed medical expenses and lost earnings.

The moving parties do not address these factors. The court understands policy limits are being tendered, but the amount of the proposed settlement is $77,000 on a $50,000 policy. There is not enough information provided for the court to grant the motion. At this time, opposing parties meet their burden of showing the settlement is not in good faith. The court will hear from moving parties at the hearing. The court notes no reply brief was filed.