Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV00804, Date: 2025-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00804    Hearing Date: January 24, 2025    Dept: A

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT &

MOTION TO SEAL THE RECORD

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is required and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Angelina Corona and Hermandad Mexicana Nacional (collectively Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Capital One, N.A. (Capital One), Genesis LA Economic Growth Corp. (Genesis) and Does 1 through 20. This action stems from an attempt by Plaintiffs to pay back a loan provided by Genesis. Plaintiffs allege that they transferred the sum of $244,312.83 to a Capital One account purportedly maintained by Genesis in an attempt to pay the balance of their loan. Plaintiffs allege they received communication from a person purporting to represent Genesis instructing them to make this transfer. In actuality, the party contacting Plaintiffs was not affiliated with Genesis and intended to defraud Plaintiffs. After discovering this subterfuge, Plaintiffs attempted to recover the funds but were unsuccessful as the funds had already been transferred.

Before the Court are two motions made by Capital One. Capital One first moves for an order determining their Settlement Agreement with Plaintiffs to be in good faith pursuant to C.C.P. § 877.60. Capital One also moves for an order sealing the Settlement Agreement and the portions of its motion for Good Faith Determination which reference the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

Neither Plaintiffs nor Genesis have opposed these motions. Pursuant to C.R.C. Rule 8.54(c), a failure to oppose a motion may be deemed consent to its being granted.

ANALYSIS: 

Motion to Determine Good Faith Settlement

Any party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt may seek a judicial determination that a settlement was made in good faith. (C.C.P. § 877.6 (a), (c)-(d).)  An unopposed motion for determination of good faith settlement need not contain a full and complete discussion of the Tech-Bilt factors by declaration or affidavit; rather, a bare bones motion setting forth the grounds of good faith and a declaration containing a brief background of the case is sufficient. (City of Grant Terrance v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1260.)

Here, Capital One submits its motion attesting to the grounds of good faith. Capital One explains that the settlement agreement was reached after lengthy negotiations with Plaintiffs. (Mot. p. 6.) Capital One further states that amount of the settlement agreement reflects its minimal exposure liability and is thus proportional. Capital One also submits the declaration of its counsel, Nicholas J. Hoffman, which provides the background of the case and settlement negotiations. This declaration further states that Capital One has been in extensive contact with co-defendant Genesis and that Genesis does not dispute the good faith nature of the settlement. (Hoffman Decl. ¶¶ 10-11.)

Given the motion is unopposed and having reviewed Capital One’s submissions, the Court finds the settlement was made in good faith. Accordingly, Capital One’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.

Motion to Seal

Capital One requests an order sealing the Settlement Agreement and any references to the settlement amount made in/attached to its Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

“An order sealing the record must: (A) Specifically state the facts that support the findings; and (B) Direct the sealing of only those documents and pages, or, if reasonably practicable, portions of the documents and pages, that contain the material that needs to be placed under seal. All other portions of each document or page must be included in the public file.” (C.R.C Rule 2.550(e).)

Pursuant to C.R.C. Rule 2.550(d): “The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.”

As cited by the moving party, confidential settlement agreements are covered by California’s privacy protection. (See, e.g., Hinshaw, Winkler, Draa. Mash & Still, 51 Cal. App. 4th 233, 241 (“We find a private settlement agreement is entitled to at least as much privacy protection as a bank account or tax information, and analyze the situation on that basis ... These confidential settlement agreements are entitled to privacy protection.”). The Court finds that Capital One has adequately demonstrated an interest in the confidentiality of the Settlement Agreement which is sufficient to override the general interest of public access. The parties have a contractual obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the terms of the Settlement Agreement and their ability to meet these obligations would be prejudiced if the terms were released into the public record. (See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283 [“We agree with defendant that its contractual obligation not to disclose can constitute an overriding interest within the meaning of rule 243.1(d).” (old CRC reference].) Additionally, this Court finds no strong public interest in access to the confidential terms of the settlement. As such, Capital One has sufficiently demonstrated an overriding interest which overcomes the right of public access to the record.

Lastly, the Court finds the proposed sealing to be narrowly tailored and that no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. Capital One’s proposed sealing is limited to the information contained in the Settlement Agreement and to the portions of its Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement which includes the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

Accordingly, Capital One’s unopposed Motion to Seal is GRANTED.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Capital One, N.A.’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement & Motion to Seal the Record came on regularly for hearing on January 24, 2025, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT IS GRANTED.

THE MOTION TO SEAL IS GRANTED.

CAPITAL ONE, N.A. TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.