Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 21STCV45345, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV45345 Hearing Date: October 4, 2022 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
October 4, 2022
21STCV45345
Motion to Challenge Good Faith Settlement filed by Defendant Raymond Parr
DECISION
The motion is continued.
The parties are to appear on the date of the hearing to discuss a continued hearing date.
Defendant Parr has only recently been served and filed his answer to the First Amended Complaint on June 21, 2022. For this reason, Defendant Parr has not had an opportunity conduct meaningful discovery.
In light of this lack of discovery and the issues noted below, the Court finds that continuing the hearing date is necessary.
At this time, the Court has no information about Plaintiff’s potential total recovery at all. Without that information, the Court has no basis for determining whether the settlement of $340,000 against Defendant Bertrand who pled no contest to an involuntary manslaughter charge in connection with the death at issue here is in the “ballpark” of a good faith settlement. This is particularly in true in light of the fact that based on the facts presented, to the extent there is liability here, Defendant Bertrand is clearly substantially more liable than Defendant Parr against whom it is alleged that he did not call 911 sufficiently swiftly.
The Court also has no information about the financial condition of Defendant Bertrand and his ability to pay more than $340,000. The Court would also like further clarity about whether Defendant Bertrand has any additional insurance policies that may apply to this incident and whether he is pursuing or plans to pursue claims against his homeowner's insurance company for failure to pay the claim.
In short, given that this is a wrongful death case in which it is likely that substantial damages are being sought and given that the defendant who admitted criminal responsibility in connection with the death at issue here is the one seeking to settle for what may be an insubstantial amount of money in light of what a total award might be, the Court believes that a continuance is in the interests of justice here.
Moving party is to provide notice.
