Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 21-01224352, Date: 2023-08-01 Tentative Ruling

(1) Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement (2) CMC

Tentative Ruling:  Defendant and Cross-Defendant Alexandria Valentina Rios moves for an order determining the good faith settlement entered into between herself and Plaintiff Luis Daniel Elicea (“Plaintiff”).

On May 2, 2023, the Court continued this matter to August 1, 2023, to allow for additional discovery and settlement discussions, and ordered non-settling party Defendant City of Buena Park to file a supplemental brief 9 court days prior to the continued hearing date.  (ROA 129.)  No supplemental brief has been filed.  Thus, the Court will now rule on the Motion.

Whether a settlement is within the “good faith ballpark” is to be evaluated on the basis of information available at the time of settlement under the following factors:

·         the amount paid in settlement;

·         a rough approximation of plaintiff’s total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability;

·         a recognition that the settlor should pay less in settlement than if found liable after a trial; and

·         evidence of any collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct between the settlor and the plaintiffs aimed at making the non-settling parties pay more than their fair share.

(Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499 (Tech-Bilt).)  A settlement is in good faith if it is within the “reasonable range,” i.e., within the ballpark, of the settling tortfeasor’s share of liability for the plaintiff’s injuries, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the particular case.  (Ibid.)

Substantial evidence (e.g., factual declarations) showing the nature and extent of the settling defendant’s liability is required.  Without such evidence, a “good faith” determination is an abuse of discretion. (See Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1348 [“questionable assumptions” in moving party’s memorandum of points and authorities insufficient to show settlement was reasonable]; Greshko v. County of Los Angeles (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 822, 834 [attorney’s declaration re settling defendant’s liability insufficient where he failed to provide specific supporting facts or expert opinion].)

The Motion is devoid of any evidence demonstrating the extent of Plaintiff’s injuries, Defendant Rios’ financial situation, or the circumstances or facts regarding the collision.  Thus, Defendant Rios has failed to provide the required evidence showing the nature and extent of her liability.  There is insufficient evidence for the Court to find that the settlement is within the ballpark of reasonableness.  Thus, the Motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving party is to give notice.