Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCCV00771, Date: 2023-03-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCCV00771    Hearing Date: March 30, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     March 30, 2023                                   TRIAL DATE: October 31, 2023

CASE:                         LEONID RUDIN and HAVIVA KIERZENBLAT v. HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL, MAY LIU, M.D., ALAN MOAZZAM, M.D., AZHIL DURAIRAT, M.D., NIKHIL DAGA, M.D., and DOES 1-100, inclusive.

CASE NO.:                 BC661280

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant May Liu

RESPONDING PARTY:      No response filed.

SERVICE:                              Filed March 6, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Dr. Liu moves for determination that her settlement with Plaintiffs was in good faith.12

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of  Plaintiffs Leonid Rudin and Haviva Kierzenblat’s (“Plaintiffs”) claim for medical malpractice against Defendants Huntington Hospital, May Liu, M.D. (“Dr. Liu”), Alan Moazzam, M.D., Azhil Durairant, M.D., and Nikhil Daga, M.D. (“Defendants”).

            Plaintiff allege that in February 2017, he presented to Huntington Hospital with complaints of severe chest pain and an abnormal EKG. Plaintiff alleges that he did not receive timely cardiac intervention and that thus his heart is irreparably damaged. Plaintiff filed this complaint on May 12, 2017, alleging two causes of action for (1) medical negligence and (2) loss of consortium.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Dr. Liu’s motion for determination of good faith settlement is GRANTED.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Any party to an action in which 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 or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors”. (Code Civ. Proc. section 877.6, subd. (a)(1).) “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, subd. (c).)

            One consideration for whether a settlement was made in good faith is “whether the amount of the settlement is within the reasonable range of the settling tortfeasor's proportional share of comparative liability for the plaintiff's injuries.” (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.) The California Supreme Court, in Tech-Bilt, also stated that relevant factors include “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.” (Ibid.)

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

DISCUSSION

            Dr. Liu provides that she has reached a settlement agreement with Plaintiffs. (Zavala Decl. ¶ 3.) Dr. Liu provides that the settlement terms are confidential but provides that in return for a payment of an undisclosed monetary amount, Plaintiffs agree to dismiss their complaint with prejudice and waive any future claims for wrongful death against Dr. Liu. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5.) Dr. Liu provides that each party will bear their own attorney’s fees and costs. (Id. ¶ 6.) Dr. Liu provides that the settlement was reached after mediation and negotiation overseen by mediator Jay Horton. (Id. ¶ 9.) Dr. Liu also provides that her counsel informed counsel for Huntington Memorial Hospital that a settlement was reached and the amount of the settlement. (Id. ¶ 22.)

            “[W]hen 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.” (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.) Here, although Dr. Liu does not disclose the settlement amount, there is no opposition to the present motion. Further, the settlement was reached through a mediator and the remaining Defendant was apprised of the settlement and the settlement amount.

CONCLUSION

            Dr. Liu’s motion for determination of good faith settlement is GRANTED.

            Moving party to give notice.

Dated:   March 30, 2023                                 ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org