Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV04106 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling

This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in April 2019. Plaintiff Jorge Pedroza filed his Complaint against Daniela Angulo, Amanda Matias, Heather Nelson, Donald Nelson, Dempsey Yearout on February 2, 2021.

Defendants Donald and Heather Nelson (“Moving Defendants”) seek to avoid future litigation and costs and agreed to pay Plaintiff $100,000 to resolve his claims against them. Plaintiff agreed to sign a settlement and release agreement and will file a request for dismissal upon receiving the settlement funds.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 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. (Code Civ. Proc. section 877(a).)

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.

In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499 (Tech-Bilt, Inc.), 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, Inc., supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 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.]” (Ibid.)

“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.” (Id. at pp. 499-500.)

“[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.]” (TSI Seismic Tenant Space, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 159, 166.)

An unopposed motion for determination of good faith of settlement need not contain a full and complete discussion of the Tech-Bilt factors (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488) 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 Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.)

Moving Defendants seek a determination of good faith settlement in this matter. Moving Defendants agreed to pay their insurance policy limits of $100,000 in exchange for Plaintiff’s dismissal of Moving Defendants from the action with prejudice. (Perkins Decl., ¶4.) Plaintiff’s medical expenses arising from the subject collision totaled $104,423.86. (Perkins Decl., ¶3; Exh. A.)

Moving Defendants propose to pay their insurance policy limits that will cover the majority of Plaintiff’s medical expenses. The remaining Defendants, Daniela Angulo and Amanda Matias, were properly served with notice of this motion. Because Moving Defendants will tender their full policy limits, there is no opposition, and the terms appear fair, the motion is granted.