Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 20STCV18438, Date: 2024-04-08 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: 20STCV18438    Hearing Date: April 8, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

MOVING PARTY:  Defendants Win Security (erroneously sued as Win Security dba Metro Parking, Inc.) and Sam Young

RESPONDING PARTY:  None

The Court has considered the moving papers.  No opposition or reply papers have been filed.

BACKGROUND 

  On February 24, 2021, Plaintiff Alejandro Constantino Canseco (“Plaintiff”) filed his operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Win Security dba Metro Parking Inc. (“Win Security”), 3 Alameda Plaza, LLC (“3 Alameda Plaza”), Sam Young (“Young”), and Does 1 through 20.  The FAC asserts six causes of action for (1) Negligent Hiring, Retention, Supervision and Failure to Terminate; (2) Assault; (3) Battery; (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (5) General Negligence; and (6) Negligence-Premises Liability.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Young, a security guard employed by Defendant Win Security, pepper-sprayed him at a shopping center owned by Defendant Alameda Plaza.

On April 20, 2021, Plaintiff dismissed his first cause of action for negligent hiring retention, supervision and failure to terminate.   On May 3, 2021, the Court granted Defendant Win Security’s motion to strike punitive damages allegations from the FAC. On October 26, 2021, Intervenor Amguard Insurance Company (“Intervenor”) filed its Notice of Lien.

On September 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed its Notice of Settlement.  On December 15, 2022, Intervenor filed its amended Notice of Lien.  On December 21, 2022, Intervenor filed its Complaint-in-Intervention for recovery of workers’ compensation benefits.  On August 15, 2023, Intervenor filed its Request for Dismissal as to its Complaint-in-Intervention. 

Now, Plaintiff and Intervenor and Defendants Win Security and Young (“Moving Defendants”) have reached a full and final settlement, subject to the instant application for determination of good faith settlement filed by Moving Defendants.  No opposition has been filed to the application.

DISCUSSION 

Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (a)(2) states as follows:

In the alternative, a settling party may give notice of settlement to all parties and to the court, together with an application for determination of good faith settlement and a proposed order. The application shall indicate the settling parties, and the basis, terms, and amount of the settlement. The notice, application, and proposed order shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by personal service. Proof of service shall be filed with the court. Within 25 days of the mailing of the notice, application, and proposed order, or within 20 days of personal service, a nonsettling party may file a notice of motion to contest the good faith of the settlement. If none of the nonsettling parties files a motion within 25 days of mailing of the notice, application, and proposed order, or within 20 days of personal service, the court may approve the settlement. The notice by a nonsettling party shall be given in the manner provided in subdivision (b) of Section 1005.  However, this paragraph shall not apply to settlements in which a confidentiality agreement has been entered into regarding the case or the terms of the settlement.

 The issue of the good faith of a settlement may be determined by the court based on 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., § 877.6, subd. (b).)   A party asserting lack of good faith in settlement has the burden of proving lack of good faith.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).)  The objecting party may carry its burden by demonstrating that the settlement is so far “out of the ballpark” in relation to various 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 plaintiffs;  

(4)  A recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than it would if it 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 interests of the non-settling defendants.

(Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assocs. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499-500.)  When the motion for determination of good faith settlement is unopposed, then it may be granted without consideration of the Tech-Bilt factors and on the basis of setting forth the ground for good faith determination and a brief background of the case.  (See City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261 [“[W]e . . . conclude that only when the good faith nature of a settlement is disputed, it is incumbent upon the trial court to consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors.  That is to say, when no one objects, the barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is sufficient.”)

Here, Moving Defendants apply for an order determining that the settlement reached by and between Plaintiff, Intervenor, and Moving Defendants (the “Settling Parties”) was entered into and made in good faith pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 877.6.  The Settling Parties have agreed, in good faith, to resolve all of Plaintiff’s claims as to and against Moving Defendants by settling for payment of $90,000, in exchange for Plaintiff’s and Intervenor’s dismissal with prejudice of their claims as to and against Moving Defendants.  The application should be granted based on the following:

Notice of settlement was given to the Court, Plaintiff, Intervenor and the non-settling Defendant—3 Alameda Plaza—on March 8, 2024, via certified mail and e-mail.  (3/8/24 Notice, Proof of Service.)  The application, notice and proposed order were served as well on March 8, 2024, via certified mail and e-mail.  (3/8/24 Application, Proofs of Service.)  The application contains the relevant terms of the agreement.  (Declaration of Nicolas H. Pak, ¶¶ 2-3, 6-8.)  The non-settling party did not file a motion challenging the application for good faith settlement determination within 25 days of service of the application by certified mail.  Since the application is uncontested, it shall be granted so long as it sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration setting forth a brief background of the case.  Upon review, the Court finds both requirements have been met here.

Accordingly, the Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, Section 877.6(a)(2) is GRANTED. 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.               

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

Dated this 8th day of April 2024