Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 22SMCV01892, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01892    Hearing Date: November 12, 2024    Dept: O

 Case Name:  Bita/Samir LLC v. 2013 Babak Agah, et al.

SUBJECT:                MOTION TO CONTEST APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

MOVING PARTY:  Non-Settling Defendants Yanonis Enterprises dba Save the Day Restoration

RESP. PARTY:        Settling Defendants Babak Agah, Meroeh Meraji, and Park Westwood Towers Condominium Assoc., Inc. and Plaintiff BITA/SAMIR LLC

TENTATIVE RULING

            Non-Settling Defendants Yanonis Enterprises dba Save the Day Restoration’s Motion to Contest Settling Defendants Babak Agah, Meroeh Meraji, and Park Westwood Towers Condominium Assoc., Inc. Application for Determination Good Faith Settlement is DENIED. Settling Defendants provide evidence to show that the good faith settlement was made in good faith pursuant to the Tech-Bilt factors and CCP § 877.6. Non-Settling Defendant fail to meet their burden to show that settlement was not obtained in good faith.  

            Settling Defendants Babak Agah, Meroeh Meraji, and Park Westwood Towers Condominium Assoc., Inc. Application for Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED. The

Court orders any and all and comparative indemnity based on comparative negligence or comparative fault arising from the alleged damages and injuries be forever barred.  

            The terms of the settlement are as follows:

A total settlement sum of $110,000.00 has or will be paid on behalf of Moving Defendants to  Plaintiff. Each party is to bear their own attorneys' fees and costs. In exchange for payment of the foregoing sums, BITA/SAMIR LLC will dismiss its claims against the Settling Defendants and Settling Defendants will dismiss any Cross-Actions against one another. In addition, the Settling Parties have executed a General Release.

(8-13-24 Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement, p. 3.)

REASONING

CCP §877.6 states, in pertinent part: “(a) Any party to an action wherein it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of good faith or a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors . . . [para.] (c) A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasors from any further claims against the settling tortfeasors for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault. [para.] (d) The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.” 

Two procedures are available to obtain a court determination of the “good faith” issue, either an application, which may be followed by a motion contesting the application or a regular motion filed by the party seeking approval. (Code Civ. Proc., §877.6(a)(1) and (2).) 

Non-Settling Defendant Yanonis Enterprises dba Save the Day Restoration (“STDR”) move to contest the Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement filed on 8-13-24 by Settling Defendants Babak Agah (“Agah”), Meroeh Meraji (“Meraji”) and Park Westwood Towers Condominium Assoc., Inc. (“PWTCA”) (collectively, “Settling Defendants”). STDR filed the motion on 8-29-24, within the statutory period to file the motion pursuant to CCP § 877.6(a)(2). STDR contests the good faith settlement based on the Tech-Bilt factors arguing that the Settling Defendants fail to provide a rough approximation of Plaintiff Bita/Samir LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) recovery, and secondly, there is an existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed at injuring STDR since over 90% of the total settlement amount goes towards Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees. (Motion, pp. 5–8.)

In determining whether a settlement is in good faith, the Tech-Bilt court stated that the trial court should inquire into, among other things, “...whether the amount of the settlement is within the reasonable range of the settling tortfeasor’s proportional share of comparative liability for the plaintiff’s injuries.”  (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.)

The intent and policies underlying CCP §877.6 require that a number of facts be taken into account (i.e. the Tech-Bilt factors) including: (1) a rough approximation of plaintiff’s total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) the allocation of settlement proceeds among defendants; (4) a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial; (5) the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants; and (6) the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interest of the nonsettling defendants. (Ibid.) ¿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.  (Ibid.)

The party asserting the lack of good faith has the burden of proof. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).) ¿The party asserting lack of good faith should 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 objective of §877.6. (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 500-501.) A determination that the settlement was in good faith would “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, subd. (c).) ¿Any existing cross-complaints for such claims would be subject to dismissal. 

While an unopposed application for good faith settlement may be granted on bare bones facts, an opposed application requires the Court to consider the settlement based on the Tech-Bilt factors.  (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.) This requires the settlor to provide the Court with “sufficient evidentiary basis to enable the court to consider and evaluate the various aspects of the settlement.”  (Id. at p. 1263.)  “Because Tech-Bilt mandates a rough approximation of the settling defendant's proportionate liability and consideration of all other defendants' proportionate liability and consideration of all other factors that might affect the fairness of the settlement as respects non-settling defendants, the affidavits, declarations or other evidence should provide the court with the facts necessary to evaluate the settlement in terms of the factors contemplated by Tech-Bilt. Without the facts, in a contested hearing, it is impossible for a court to exercise its discretion in an appropriate fashion.”  (Ibid.)  

            As a preliminary matter, STDR argues in the Reply that the Settling Defendants cannot provide declarations and evidence within the opposition to the Motion to Contest that were not included in the original Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement. (Reply, pp. 2–3.) This argument is incorrect. CCP § 877.7(b) expressly states, “[t[he issue of the good faith of a settlement may be determined by the court on the basis of affidavits served with the notice of hearing, and any counteraffidavits filed in response, or the court may, in its discretion, receive other evidence at the hearing.” (Code Civ. Proc., ¶ 877.7, subd. (b).) STDR does not provide any authority to support their argument, and the statute specifically states that affidavits can be filed to support the claims. Thus, the Court will consider the declarations submitted by the Settling Defendants in their opposition.

            The Settling Defendants, joined by the Plaintiff, provide evidence of good faith within their initial application, as well as the opposition to the motion, which shows that nearly 100% liability should be placed upon STDR, and thus the $110,000.00 settlement total is “fair and reasonable in comparison to their argued proportional share of liability,” of $594,312.16. (Settling Defendants Oppo., pp. 3–4; Ex. B, Deposition of Juan Martinez (“Martinez Depo.”), 70:18-21, 72:11-22, 73:1-7, 73:23-74:1, 74:21-24, 81:14-22; 83:19-23; Ex. C, (“Kreitenberg Decl., at pp. 1, 3; Plaintiff’s Oppo, pp. 3–4.). The Settling Defendants include a rough approximation of Plaintiff’s total recovery within their application, thus STDR’s argument that the approximation is not included is without merit. (See Heimler Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A , Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement, ¶ II.A.)

            The Settling Defendants, joined by the Plaintiff, show that the settlement allocation was made in good faith since Plaintiff, as an HOA member, has claimed attorney’s fees from the Settling Defendants based on the applicable CC&R’s and the Davis-Stirling Act , where no such claim is viable against STDR. Settling Defendants argue that the allocation is reasonable because “even if a $100.00 award of monetary damages was found against the Settling Defendants, they could have been liable for 100% of the attorneys’ fees incurred,” which are expected to be greater than economic damages. The Court agrees and finds the settlement allocation reasonable.

            Additionally, the Settling Defendant and Plaintiff argue, and provide evidence, that the Parties participated in a “full-day private mediation,” on 7-24-24 where the settlement was negotiated and facilitated through a neutral mediator, as well as the parties engaging in “numerous back-and-forth efforts that took an entire day to” finalize the settlement. (Settling Defendant Oppo., p. 6; Heimler Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A, Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement, at pp. 5, 8 with attached Heimler Decl., ¶ 7 and Todd Decl., ¶ 7.)

            STDR provides no evidence for their arguments to rebut the Settling Defendants provided evidence. STDR does not provide any declarations, no discovery responses or deposition testimony, or anything else other arguments within the brief. This alone is not enough to contest an application for good faith settlement. The party asserting the lack of good faith has the burden of proof to show lack of good faith, and STDR fails to meet that burden. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).)

            Thus, STDR’s Motion to Contest Settling Defendants Application for Good Faith Settlement is DENIED.

            Settling Defendants Application for Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED. The

Court orders any and all and comparative indemnity based on comparative negligence or comparative fault arising from the alleged damages and injuries be forever barred.