Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV15841 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

This is an action for negligence, negligence per se, and statutory liability arising from a vehicle collision which took place in May 2019. Plaintiff Gabriel Salinas Becerra filed his Complaint against Brian and Bennie Thomas and Shane, Reynaldo, and Annabelle Tuyor on April 27, 2021.

The Tuyor Defendants move for a determination of good faith settlement. The Tuyor Defendants’ insurer, the American Connect Insurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company, have already paid Plaintiff the policy limit of $50,000 to settle Plaintiff’s claims against them.

The Thomas Defendants argue that a finding that the Tuyors’ settlement was made in good faith is premature because liability is hotly contested in this matter, the Thomas Defendants would be disproportionately liable for the remaining damages, which Plaintiff claims is $10 million, there is no information about the Tuyor Defendants’ financial condition, and there is no information about Plaintiff’s actual damages.

The Tuyor Defendants argue that any injury case with joint tortfeasors is subject to a Proposition 51 application and that the statement of damages bears little relationship to reality. The Tuyor Defendants also argue that the Thomas Defendants have not performed any discovery in more than one year.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (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., § 877.6, subd. (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., § 877, subd. (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.)

At this time, the Court has no information about Plaintiff’s potential total recovery other than the statement of damages, which demands $10 million in damages. Without more information, the Court has no basis for determining whether the settlement of $50,000 against the Tuyor Defendants is in the “ballpark” of a good faith settlement. Additionally, both the Tuyor Defendants and the Thomas Defendants argue that the other is at fault for the collision at issue here. However, no evidence is presented which would enable to the Court to conduct the necessary review of the proposed settlement.

Since no evidence has been provided which would enable the Court to make a rough approximation of Plaintiff’s total recovery or a rough approximation of the settling defendants’ proportionate liability, the motion is denied without prejudice on that basis.

Additionally, the Thomas Defendant wish to conduct discovery as to the financial ability of the Tuyor Defendants to pay in excess of the offered policy limit. They should have the opportunity to conduct discovery on this topic.