Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 19STCV13414, Date: 2022-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV13414    Hearing Date: August 22, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

DBC’s application for a determination of good-faith settlement is GRANTED.

On 4/17/2019, Plaintiff Sunanth Chavanaprayoon (Plaintiff) filed suit against Bangluck Market, Mangluck Market Corp., Bangluck Market 2019, and DBC Properties, Inc. (DBC). 

On 4/27/2022, the Court denied DBC’s application for good faith settlement without prejudice.

On 7/21/2022, the Court granted DBC’s motion for summary adjudication.

Now, DBC renews its motion for determination of good faith settlement.

Discussion

            The Court previously denied DBC’s application for good faith settlement on the grounds that it had submitted insufficient evidence to show that the settlement was in the “reasonable range” of its share of liability because of the unresolved issue of indemnification. (See 4/27/2022 Ruling; Tech-Bilt, Inc., supra, 38 Cal.3d at 499.)

            Now, Defendant DBC argues that it is entitled to a determination of good faith settlement because it has supplemented its evidence and because its motion for summary adjudication—which adjudicated the issue of Bangluck Market’s duty to indemnify—was granted.

To determine whether a settlement was entered in good faith, courts apply the standards set forth by the California Supreme Court in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 37 Cal.3d 448. Under that case, courts are to consider (1) the settling defendant’s alleged proportion of liability and a rough approximation of the plaintiff’s total recovery; (2) the amount being paid by the settling defendant; (3) the recognition that settling party should pay less in settlement than it would if found liable at trial; (4) the settling defendant’s financial condition and insurance coverage available; and (5) whether there was any collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interest of any non-settling party. (37 Cal.3d at p. 499.) The party asserting lack of good faith has the burden of proof on this issue. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).) 

In support of its good faith settlement application, Defendant submitted evidence that on March 1, 2022, Plaintiff and DBC entered into a settlement for DBC’s policy limit of $1,000,000, and that the terms of the settlement agreement are as follow: DBC agreed to pay $1,000,000.00 in exchange for a dismissal with prejudice; DBC does not admit liability pursuant to the settlement; and Plaintiff has agreed to refrain from making any objections to or preventing DBC from pursuing its cross-complaint against Bangluck for failure to defend and indemnify, and contribution. (Samsonova Decl., ¶ 4.)

            To show that this is within the reasonable range of its liability, Defendant submitted the following:

-         At the outset of discovery, Plaintiff submitted a statement of Damages which reported the following sums:

o   Medical Expenses: $112,830

o   Lost Future Earning Capacity: $600,00

o   Future Medical Expenses: $1,000,000

o   Emotional Distress: $2,000,000

o   Pain and Suffering: $10,000,000

-         Having engaged in discovery, DBC’s billing expert estimated the reasonable value of Plaintiff’s past medical treatment to be $55,000. (Samsonova Decl.,  ¶ 5.) Plaintiff’s estimated future medical treatments—for a full hip replacement, medication, doctor’s visits, and post-operative in-home care—will be approximately $163,000 to $255,000. (Samsonova Decl.,  ¶ 8, Exh. 6.) Plaintiff’s expert life care planner estimates that Plaintiff will require supportive care in the average amount of $38,870. (Samsonova Decl.,  ¶ 8, Exh. 8.) Defendants dispute that future medical treatment will be necessary.

-         The Court’s ruling on the motion for summary adjudication determined that the Market owes it a duty to indemnify. As such, the material dispute as to DBC’s percentage of liability that led the Court to previously deny the good-faith settlement has since been resolved.

The settlement must be within the "reasonable range" (within the "ballpark") of the settling tortfeasor's share of liability for the plaintiffs injuries-taking into consideration the facts and  circumstances of the particular case. (Tech-Bilt, Inc., supra, 38 Cal.3d at 499.)

DBC’s evidence indicates that Plaintiff’s estimated damages are approximately $2,000,000.  Given the Court’s 7/21/2022 ruling, there is no longer a material dispute as to DBC’s percentage of potential liability. In light of section 8.7 of the Lease between Bangluck Market and DBC, the Market must indemnify DBC for any claims that arise out of DBC’s use of the premises and DBC’s liability will likely be limited to 0% and 50%. As such, its proposed $1,000,000 settlement—half of the estimated total damages—falls within the reasonable range of its share of liability.

Based on the foregoing, DBC’s application for a determination of good-faith settlement is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  August    , 2022

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.