Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case 20STCV14010 2023-04-17 Tentative Ruling

On April 10, 2020, minor plaintiffs Jonathan Castellanos (“Jonathan”) and Bryan Castellanos (“Bryan”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), through their guardian ad litem, Heidy Rodriguez, filed this action against defendants Elizabeth Stewart-Videa (“Stewart-Videa”), Christian Videa (“Videa”), and Antonio Jose Cerda Arias (“Arias”) for (1) motor vehicle, (2) general negligence, (3) premises liability, and (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress against all defendants. On July 14, 2020, Stewart-Videa and Videa filed a cross-complaint against Arias for (1) total indemnity, (2) implied partial indemnity, (3) declaratory relief, and (4) equitable apportionment.

In September 2021, Arias reached a settlement with Plaintiffs. Under the settlement agreement, Arias would pay his automobile liability insurance policy limit of $50,000. Plaintiff Jonathan would receive $40,000 and plaintiff Bryan would receive $10,000.

Arias filed an application for determination of good faith settlement which the Court heard on December 17, 2021. The Court denied the application without prejudice because plaintiff Bryan, a minor, had to file and obtain approval of a petition for minor’s compromise before Arias could submit his application. Plaintiff Bryan filed his petition on October 25, 2022, which the Court granted on November 17, 2022.

“Any party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or coobligors on a contract shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or coobligors….” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 877.6.) Good faith settlements further two sometimes competing policies: (1) the equitable sharing of costs among the parties at fault, and (2) the encouragement of settlements. (Erreca’s v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1487.)

The Court must consider several factors including “a rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial.” (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499 (Tech-Bilt).)

A contested application for determination of good faith settlement must analyze the ‘Tech-Built factors,’ but an unopposed motion does not require a finding on every factor. In City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261, the Court of Appeal stated, “We are unaware of any reported decision which has reversed an uncontested good faith determination and we, therefore, conclude that only 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.)¿

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 of Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(2).)¿

In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Plaintiffs were lawfully walking on Cherry Avenue when a dog owned by Defendants Stewart-Videa and Videa began aggressively growling and forcefully trying to exit the rear fence. Fearing imminent attack, Plaintiff Jonathan Castellanos instinctively ran from the dog and into the street where he was struck by vehicle owned and operated by Arias. (Form Complaint, p. 5.)

In a collision report prepared by Officer E. Saldana, Officer Saldana concluded that Arias was not at fault. (Dao Decl., Ex. A.) Although the report states Arias was not at fault, Arias and Plaintiffs have reached a settlement agreement. Arias has agreed to pay the policy limit of $50,000 in exchange for Plaintiffs’ release and waiver of Plaintiff’s claims against Arias. (Motion, p. 2; Dao Decl., ¶ 5.) Further, all parties who have appeared in this action have been served with notice of Arias’s motion for determination of good faith settlement. No oppositions have been filed.

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes the settlement between Plaintiffs Bryan Castellanos and Jonathan Castellanos, through their guardian ad litem Heidy Rodriguez and Defendant Antonio Jose Cerda Arias was made in good faith. The Court GRANTS the motion for a good faith settlement.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Hon. Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court