Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 23STCV15535, Date: 2025-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15535    Hearing Date: January 13, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

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

            On 7/5/2023, Plaintiff Prime Pan-Pacific Co. (Plaintiff) filed suit against Rufino Santana, Santana & P Trucking, Kap Dong Kim & Bridget Kim as trustees of Kim Dong Kim and Bridget Kim revocable trust, Bridget Kim, Kap Dong Kim, Dynamic Controls, LTD, and the City of Gardena, alleging: (1) express indemnification; (2) implied indemnity/equitable indemnification; (3) equitable contribution; (4) declaratory relief; and (5) declaratory relief.

            On 12/24/2024, Plaintiff moved for a determination of good faith settlement.

            The motion is unopposed.

Legal Standard

In an action where it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors, “a settling party may give notice of settlement to all parties and to the court, together with an application for determination of good faith settlement and a proposed order. The application shall indicate the settling parties, and the basis, terms, and amount of the settlement. . . . Within 25 days of the mailing of the notice, application, and proposed order, or within 20 days of personal service, a nonsettling party may file a notice of motion to contest the good faith of the settlement. If none of the nonsettling parties files a motion within 25 days of mailing of the notice, application, and proposed order, or within 20 days of personal service, the court may approve the settlement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(2).) 

“The issue of the good faith of a settlement may be determined by the court on the basis of affidavits served with the notice of hearing, and any counteraffidavits filed in response, or the court may, in its discretion, receive other evidence at the hearing,” and the party asserting lack of good faith has the burden of proof on that issue. (Id., subd. (b), (d).) “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., subd. (c).) 

Discussion

            Plaintiff moves the Court to determine that the settlement entered into between it and Defendants Kap Dong Kim, Bridget Kim, and Dalton Medical Corporation (collectively, Settling Defendants) was entered in good faith.

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 a 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. (CCP § 877.6, subd. (d).) 

Here, the Settlement provides:

$275,000 will be paid by insurance on behalf of Kap Dong Kim and Bridget Kim, $125,000 will be paid by Prime Pan-Pacific Co. in five installments, and $25,000 will be paid by insurance on behalf of Dalton Medical Corporation. In exchange, Plaintiffs here will release all claims against the settling Defendants, and Defendants will resolve any potential cross-claims for indemnity or contribution among themselves.

            (Motion, 4: 5-9.)

To show good faith, Plaintiff submitted evidence that the parties engaged in extensive arms-length negotiations. (See Park Decl.) Indeed, no oppositions to the settlement were filed, and thus no argument has been advanced that the settlement is the result of fraud or collusion.

After review, and considering the lack of opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that the Settlement meets the Tech-Bilt factors, and that it was entered into in good faith.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for determination of good faith settlement is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January    , 2025

   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.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.