Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2021-00014113-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 15, 2023

11/17/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00014113-CU-PO-CTL FOSTER VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Contest Good Faith Settlement, 09/26/2023

The Motion (ROA # 216) of Defendants, Cross-Complainants and Cross-Defendants DAVIS / REED CONSTRUCTION, INC. and ORAM PROPERTIES ONE, LP dba THE GUILD HOTEL ('Defendants') contesting the good faith of the settlement entered into by Defendant, Cross- Complainant and Cross-Defendant CITY OF SAN DIEGO ('City') and Plaintiff DONNA FOSTER ('Plaintiff'), is DENIED.

As a result of this ruling the settlement is deemed to be in good faith. This determination bars any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling parties for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.

Code Civ. Pro. 877.6(c).

The party asserting the lack of good faith has the burden of proof. Code Civ. Proc. 877.6(d).

The factors to be taken into account in the determination of whether a settlement is in 'good faith' include: (1) a rough approximation of Plaintiff's total recovery and the settlor's proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) the allocation of settlement proceeds among settling parties; and (4) a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than if 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 of settling defendants, as well as the existence of collusion, fraud or tortious conduct aimed at injuring the interests of non-settling Defendants. Id. The settlement figure must not be grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person, at the time of the settlement, would estimate the settling party's liability to be. Id. Though the party asserting the lack of good faith has the burden of proof on that issue, once the settlement is attacked as lacking in good faith, the settling parties are required to file counter affidavits making an evidentiary showing that the settlement was 'in the ballpark.' Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal. App. 4th 1337, 1350, fn. 6.

This Motion is primarily based on the contention that Davis / Reed and Oram can bear no potential liability because the subject condition in the street existed prior to the date on which they commenced the hotel renovation. This contention is based on excerpts from Plaintiff's deposition testimony.

However, the deposition testimony does not support this contention: Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3024217 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  FOSTER VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED]  37-2021-00014113-CU-PO-CTL 'I can't see from this photograph clear enough if that hole is there or not. But the layout is, obviously.

Yes. The layout's the same. But I can't see, you know, down to the detail in that asphalt. I have no idea. But the layout is the same, yes.' Therefore, the moving parties have not satisfied their burden of supporting this contention with evidence and the Motion is denied on this basis.

In addition, the City's opposition provides evidence supporting the potential that the hotel renovation related construction caused or contributed to any defective street condition.

Given this conclusion, this Motion is not persuasive no matter what value is assigned to the indemnity assignment.

The moving partis make a secondary argument that this settlement is tinged with fraud and collusion.

However, the assignment of the City's indemnity claims does not constitute fraud or collusion. The moving parties provide no other evidence of fraud or collusion. Therefore, the moving parties have not satisfied their burden of supporting this contention with evidence and the Motion is also denied on this basis.

Finally, the moving parties request a 90-day continuance to allow them to conduct discovery regarding this settlement.

'We have determined that it would be appropriate for the objecting nonsettlor to move for a continuance of the hearing, if necessary, for the purpose of gathering facts, which could include further formal discovery, to support its statutory burden of proof as to all Tech-Bilt factors nonsettlors placed in issue in order that the matter can be fully and fairly litigated.' City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1265.

'We do not mean to suggest that Manatt must be given an opportunity to conduct discovery and a trial on issues related to valuation. The amount of discovery - if any - to be allowed and the scope of the good faith settlement proceeding rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Manatt's reliance on Rankin v. Curtis (1986) 183 Cal. App. 3d 939, in support of its assertion of an absolute right to discovery is misplaced inasmuch as Rankin was decided before the Supreme Court made clear in Abbott Ford that a nonsettling defendant does not have a right to a mini-trial on the valuation issue.' Franklin Mint Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal. App. 4th 1550, 1561, fn. 5.

Davis / Reed filed its Answer in October 2021, and Oram's Answer was filed in January 2022. Thus, these parties have had ample time to conduct discovery related liability and damages. Further, the moving parties have made no showing that evidence may exist supporting fraud or collusion as between the settling parties. The moving parties have not placed any other Tech-Bilt factors at issue. As a result, the request for a 90-day continuance is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3024217