Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV01813, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01813    Hearing Date: September 21, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Suitable Staffing Solutions, Inc. (“Moving Defendant”)

The Court has considered the moving papers.  No opposition papers were filed.  Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges 11 causes of action that arise out of an employment relationship. 

On August 24, 2023, Moving Defendant filed a motion for determination of good faith settlement (the “Motion”) on the grounds that it has agreed to settle this matter with Plaintiff.

DISCUSSION

Under CCP section 877, a release, dismissal with or without prejudice, or a covenant not to sue or not to enforce judgment is given in good faith before verdict or judgment to one or more of a number of tortfeasors claimed to be liable for the same tort reduces the claims against other defendants in the amount stipulated by the release, the dismissal or the covenant, or in the amount of the consideration paid for it, whichever is the greater, and discharges the party to whom it is given from all liability for any contribution to any other parties.  (CCP § 877, subds. (a)-(b).)  A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith bars 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, subd. (c).)  

In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499 (“Tech-Bilt”), the California Supreme Court identified the following nonexclusive factors for courts to consider in determining if a settlement is in good faith under CCP section 877.6: (1) a rough approximation of plaintiffs' 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 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 interests of nonsettling defendants.  (Id.)  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.  (Id.)  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.  (Id.)

The court in City of Grand View Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261, provided the following guidance for evaluating a motion for good faith settlement determination:

This court notes that of the hundreds of motions for good faith determination presented for trial court approval each year, the overwhelming majority are unopposed and granted summarily by the trial court.  At the time of filing in many cases, the moving party does not know if a contest will develop.  If each motion required a full recital by declaration or affidavit setting forth a complete factual response to all of the Tech-Bilt factors, literally thousands of attorney hours would be consumed and inch-thick motions would have to be read and considered by trial courts in an exercise which would waste valuable judicial and legal time and clients’ resources. . . . 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.  If the good faith settlement is contested, section 877.6, subdivision (d), sets forth a workable ground rule for the hearing by placing the burden of proving the lack of good faith on the contesting party.  Once there is a showing made by the settlor of the settlement, the burden of proof on the issue of good faith shifts to the nonsettlor who asserts that the settlement was not made in good faith.  If contested, declarations by the nonsettlor should be filed which in many cases could require the moving party to file responsive counterdeclarations to negate the lack of good faith asserted by the nonsettling contesting party.  (City of Grand View Terrace v. Superior Court 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1260-61 (internal citations omitted).)

Plaintiff and Moving Defendant entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement”) on July 19, 2023.  (Declaration of Craig D. Nickerson (“Nickerson Decl.”) ¶ 22.)  Among the terms of the Settlement are a $30,000 payment by Moving Defendant to Plaintiff in exchange for the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Moving Defendant.  (See Nickerson Decl. ¶ 24.)

            The Court finds that the Motion adequately demonstrates that the proposed settlement complies with Tech-Bilt.  For this reason and because it is unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motion.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) 

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 21st day of September 2023