Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV00905, Date: 2024-06-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00905    Hearing Date: June 24, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

 

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

 

 

HEARING DATE:    June 24, 2024                                       TRIAL DATE: February 18, 2025

                                                          

CASE:                         Carmen Coronel v. Guirong Zhang, et al.

 

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV00905

 

 

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

 

MOVING PARTY:              Defendants Guirong Zhang and Huabing Xu

 

RESPONDING PARTY:      None

 

SERVICE:                              OK; Filed May 21, 2024

 

OPPOSITION:                       None

 

REPLY:                                   None

 

RELIEF REQUESTED:  Defendants move for a determination that their settlement with Plaintiff is a good faith settlement.

 

BACKGROUND

            The Complaint alleges that Defendants Guirong Zhang, Huabing Xu and Mo Bi were the operators, drivers, owners of a gray Honda CR-V, that was involved in a collision with a Camry, operated by a Lyft driver on April 29, 2021. Plaintiff was getting into the back seat passenger side of the Camry in a parking lot, as she had ordered a Lyft, when the driver of the CR-V did not see the Lyft vehicle and backed out of a parking space colliding into the open door of the Lyft vehicle. The collision pushed the door closed, pinning Plaintiff’s right left between the door and roll pan, crushing her right leg and knee.

            The Complaint alleges cause a single cause of action for motor vehicle negligence.

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

            Defendants’ unopposed motion for determination of good faith settlement is GRANTED.

 

 

LEGAL STANDARD

 

            CCP section 877.6(a)(1) provides that “[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 . . . .”  (Code. Civ. Proc., § 877.6(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.”  (Id., § 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.  (Id., § 877(a).) 

 

Factors to consider in determining if a settlement was made in good faith 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.”  (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.)  “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.”  (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.”  (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.)  “[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.”  (TSI Seismic Tenant Space, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 159, 166.)  “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.”  (Id.) 

 

“The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6(d).)  The party asserting the lack of good faith can establish that the proposed settlement was not a settlement made in good faith by showing the settlement is so far “out of the ballpark” in relation to the Tech-Bilt factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute.  (Tech-Bilt, Inc., supra, 38 Cal.3d at 499-500.) 

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Defendants Zhang and Xu move for a court order finding that the settlement entered into between Plaintiff and Defendants for $25,000 constitutes a good faith settlement and barring any past, present and future cross-complaints or claims for indemnity and/or contribution against it. 

 

An unopposed motion for determination of good faith settlement need not contain a full and complete discussion of the Tech-Bilt factors 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 Grant Terrance v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.) 

Here, defense counsel states that this matter arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Monterey Park. (Bolin Decl., 2.) This settlement was arrived at in settlement discussions whereby Plaintiff agreed to accept Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($25,000.00). (Id., 4.) The settlement was reached in a good faith manner and through open, arms-length negotiations between counsel. (Id., 7.) Defendant Xu’s declaration page for his insurance policy is attached as Exhibit E. (Id., 14.)

Further, Defendants point out that Plaintiff claims Defendant Mo Bi contributed to causing the Incident by “improperly stopping in the parking lot not in the marked stall.” (Complaint, ¶ 11.) They also point out that their insurance policy limit is $25,000. (See Bolin Decl., Exh. E.)

The court finds Defendants have presented sufficient information demonstrating the settlement was made in good faith.  Defendants are thus entitled to a court order finding the settlement was made in good faith. 

 

CONCLUSION

 

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for determination of good faith settlement is GRANTED. 

 

The settlement between Plaintiff and Defendants Zhang and Xu is a good faith settlement pursuant to CCP section 877.6.  All claims against Defendants for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault, are barred pursuant to CCP section 877.6(c). 

 

            Moving Party to give notice.

 

           

Dated:   June 24, 2024                                                ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org