Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: SC126502, Date: 2022-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: SC126502    Hearing Date: August 5, 2022    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling
Sycamore Park et al. v. Mountains Recreation and Conservation et al., Case No. SC126502
Hearing Date August 5, 2022
Cross-Defendants ABA Protection Inc. and Belov’s Motions for Determination of Good Faith Settlement -- UNOPPOSED

Defendant Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) alleged private nuisance against moving cross-defendants (collectively ABA). The parties settled for $45,000, and ABA moves for a determination of good faith settlement.

“Any party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors . . .  shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors[.]” Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §877.6(a)(1) A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor for equitable contribution or indemnity. Id. at subd. (C). In determining whether a settlement was made in good faith, the court should consider factors including the settlor’s proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement proceeds, a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after trial, the financial condition and insurance policy limits of the settling defendants, and any evidence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of non-settling parties. Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 493-494. A party opposing a motion for determination of good faith settlement has the burden of proof to show a lack of good faith. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §877.6(d).

ABA argues $45,000 is a reasonable settlement under Tech-Bilt because ABA has little to no actual liability for MRCA’s nuisance claim. ABA argues there is no evidence they created the alleged nuisance, and the effect of the nuisance was trivial. There is no evidence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct, and the length of this action and timing of the settlement indicates it was formed in good faith. There is no opposition, so the burden of proof to show a lack of good faith cannot be met. The settlement is appropriate under Tech-Bilt. GRANTED.