Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 19STCV05087, Date: 2022-10-01 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 19STCV05087    Hearing Date: October 1, 2022    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

 

 

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka                                                                                                    Monday, October 3, 2022

Department B                                                                                                                                            Calendar No. 6  


 

 

PROCEEDINGS

 

Maria Cursage, Trustee of the Maria Cursage Trust v. Steve Larkin dba SRL Construction, et al.

19STCV05087

  1. Anglo American Pool and Spa’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement   

     

    TENTATIVE RULING

         

                Anglo American Pool and Spa’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is granted.

     

                Background

     

                Plaintiff filed the Complaint on February 19, 2019.  Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint was filed on June 22, 2020.  Plaintiff alleges the following facts.  This case involves the alleged defective construction of Plaintiff’s multi-million-dollar home located at 38 Saddleback Road in Rolling Hills, California.  The project consisted of the construction of an approximately 9,500 square foot single family residence as well as appurtenances, including hardscape, a swimming pool and spa, outdoor patios, barbeques, and other facilities, and landscaping, which was to be built pursuant to architectural and building plans provided to Defendant Steve Larkin.  Defendant Larkin was the general contractor and construction manager on the project.  Plaintiff alleges defects in construction and fraudulent overbilling practices.  Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: 1. Recovery of Damages Pursuant to SB 800; 2. Breach of Oral Contract; 3. Breach of Implied Warranty; 4. Fraud. 

     

                Several Cross-Complaints have been filed in this action including a Cross-Complaint filed by Anglo American Pool naming Alberto Navarro dba Ocean Pools Plastering Company (“Navarro”) as a Cross-Defendant.

     

                Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement/Motion to Contest Good Faith Settlement

     

                Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Anglo American Pool and Spa (“Anglo”) moves for an order finding that the settlement between Plaintiff Cursage and Anglo was made in good faith pursuant to CCP §§ 877 and 877.6.  No written opposition has been filed to the motion.

     

                “[Code of Civil Procedure] Section 877.6 was enacted by the Legislature in 1980 to establish a statutory procedure for determining if a settlement by an alleged joint tortfeasor has been entered into in good faith and to provide a bar to claims of other alleged joint tortfeasors for equitable contribution or partial or comparative indemnity when good faith is shown.”  IRM Corp. v. Carlson (1986) 179 Cal. App. 3d 94, 104.

     

                CCP § 877.6(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that, on noticed motion, “[a]ny party to an action wherein it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff . . . and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors . . . .”  “A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.”  CCP § 877.6(c).  Although a determination that a settlement was in good faith does not discharge any other party from liability, “it shall reduce the claims against the others in the amount stipulated” by the settlement.  CCP § 877(a).   

     

                In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499, the California Supreme Court identified the following nonexclusive factors courts are to consider in determining if a settlement is in good faith under section 877.6:  “a rough approximation of plaintiffs' total recovery and the settlor's proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial.  Other relevant considerations include the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants, as well as the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.” 

     

                The evaluation of whether a settlement was made in good faith is required to “be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement.”  Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal.3d at 499.  “‘[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.’ [Citation.]”  Id. at 499. 

     

                “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, 38 Cal.3d at 499-500. 

     

                “Thus, Tech-Bilt held that in determining whether a settlement was made in good faith for purposes of section 877.6, a key factor a trial court should consider is whether the amount paid in settlement bears a reasonable relationship to the settlor’s proportionate share of liability. (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 499–500 . . . .)  This is because one of the main goals of section 877.6 is ‘allocating costs equitably among multiple tortfeasors.’  (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 502 . . . .).”  TSI Seismic Tenant Space, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 159, 166.  “Accordingly, a court not only looks at the alleged tortfeasor's potential liability to the plaintiff, but it must also consider the culpability of the tortfeasor vis-à-vis other parties alleged to be responsible for the same injury.  Potential liability for indemnity to a nonsettling defendant is an important consideration for the trial court in determining whether to approve a settlement by an alleged tortfeasor.  [Citation.]”  Id. at 166.

     

                In July 2021, Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Anglo American Pool reached a settlement with Plaintiff whereby Plaintiff would be paid $25,000 in exchange for a full release and dismissal and assignment of its rights to pursue relief pursuant to its cross-complaint against moving party Navarro.  As part of the settlement, a payment of $10,000 was made on behalf of Navarro to Plaintiff.  As part of the settlement, Anglo assigned all rights against third parties to Plaintiff.  Anglo denies any and all claims related to alleged defective work or materials to the swimming pool.

     

                No written opposition has been filed to this motion.  When a motion for determination of good faith settlement is uncontested, a “barebones” motion that sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case, is sufficient to support a good faith determination.  City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1261. 

     

                Moving party Anglo has provided evidence showing the amount of the settlement and a brief background of the case.  (Declaration, Mona J. Jeffery, ¶¶ 1-6.)  The Court finds that this evidence is sufficient to support a good faith determination.

     

                Anglo’s settlement with Plaintiff is deemed to be in good faith.  Because the Court has determined that the settlement was made in good faith, the determination “shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.”  Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6(c).

     

                Therefore, Anglo American Pool and Spa’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is granted.

     

                Anglo American Pool and Spa is ordered to give notice of this ruling.