Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 22STCV33699, Date: 2024-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33699    Hearing Date: February 20, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Adobe Communities (“Defendant”) moves for a determination of good faith settlement.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion.

Background

This is a landlord-tenant case. Plaintiffs Manuel de Jesus Reyes Chicas, Iris Yesenia Baires, Mylo Steven Baires, Ezre Izvy Loya Baires, and Heaven Reyes Baires (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) were tenants at a property owned by Defendant and alleged a number of bases for liability arising out of that property.

Plaintiff filed this action on October 17, 2022. The operative complaint is the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which alleges (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (2) breach of statutory warranty of habitability; (3) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (4) negligence; (5) violation of Civil Code, section 1942.4; (6) private nuisance; and (7) violation of Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance.

On April 25, 2023, the Court sustained a demurrer to the second cause of action without leave to amend.

On September 22, 2023, Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a settlement agreement.

Defendant filed this motion on November 13, 2023. No party opposes the motion.

Legal Standard

When analyzing a motion for determination of good faith settlement, the trial court should consider several factors, including “whether the amount of the settlement is within the reasonable range of the settling tortfeasor's proportional share of comparative liability for the plaintiff's injuries.” (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499 (Tech-Bilt).) Such factors (the “Tech-Bilt Factors”) are summarized as follows: 

1.     A rough approximation of the plaintiff’s total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability; 

2.     The amount paid in settlement; 

3.     The allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; 

4.     A recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than it would if it were found liable after a trial; 

5.     The financial conditions and insurance policy limits of the settling defendants; and 

6.     The existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of the non-settling defendants. 

(Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 499.)

“[O]nly when the good faith nature of a settlement is disputed, it is incumbent upon the trial court to consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors. That is to say, when no one objects, the barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is sufficient.” (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.) In light of the non-opposition to the application, the Court need not consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors.

Discussion

          No party objects to the settlement here.

          Defendant’s motion sets forth the background of the case and the grounds for good faith. Daniel Berke, Counsel for Defendant, declares that the settlement was reached in compliance with Tech-Bilt’s requirements for good faith. (Berke Decl. ¶ 7.) Per the settlement agreement, Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss this action in exchange for a total settlement amount of $200,000.00. (Berke Decl. ¶ 2.) The settlement was reached following negotiations through counsel and a mediator. (Berke Decl. ¶ 6.) All parties were represented by competent counsel. (Berke Decl. ¶ 8.) The settlement was not structured in a manner so as to defraud any party. (Berke Decl. ¶ 8.) Defendant denies liability but agreed to settle in order to avoid further costs of litigation. (Berke Decl. ¶¶ 5, 8.)

          The Court finds that the settlement was entered into in good faith. Defendant’s unopposed motion for determination of good faith settlement is granted.