Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case 21STCV09395 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling

On March 10, 2021, Plaintiffs Loujuana Francis, as Successor-In-Interest to the Estate of Garry Francis, and as Guardian Ad Litem to minors C.W.F. and B.F.F. filed this action against Defendants City of Compton (“City”), Connie Rodriguez Galdamez (“Galdamez”), Raul Rodriguez[1] (“Rodriguez”), and Jose Luis Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”). On September 30, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants for (1) Wrongful Death, (2) Survival, and (3) Negligent Entrustment. In the FAC, Plaintiffs allege that on August 8, 2019, Decedent was operating a motorcycle when he was struck by a vehicle driven by Gonzalez, then struck again by a vehicle driven by Galdamez. A few weeks after the accident, Decedent died from his injuries. Plaintiffs allege City was negligent in maintaining and designing the intersection where Decedent was injured.

On November 11, 2021, City filed a cross-complaint against Gonzalez and Galdamez[2] for equitable indemnity, contribution, apportionment, and declaratory relief.

On March 1, 2022, Gonzalez filed a motion for determination of good faith settlement. Under the settlement agreement, Plaintiffs agreed to accept Gonzalez’s insurance policy limits of $50,000. City opposed. The Court denied Gonzalez’s motion because Gonzalez failed to provide evidence to support his assertion that Decedent was operating his motorcycle in an unreasonable and unforeseeable manner. Nor did Gonzalez offer any analysis of Plaintiffs’ potential recovery, or evidence that he lacked other assets or income.

On February 14, 2023, Gonzalez, as the Settling Defendant, filed this Motion for Good Faith Settlement. Proof of service of the Motion on Nonsettling Defendant City is attached to the Motion.

“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).)¿

Settling Defendant has entered into a settlement agreement with Plaintiffs. Under the terms of the agreement, Settling Defendant is to pay his insurance policy limits of $50,000 to Plaintiffs in exchange for dismissal of all claims and causes of action with prejudice. Plaintiffs C.W.F. and B.F.F. will each receive $25,000. The Settling Parties will bear their own litigation costs and attorney’s fees. Plaintiffs are to prepare minor’s compromise petitions.[3] (Motion, pp. 5-6.) All parties who have appeared in this action have been served with notice of this Motion for Good Faith Settlement.

Additionally, Settling Defendant has cured the deficiencies of its previous motion for good faith settlement. Specifically, Settling Defendant has submitted evidence showing Decedent was contributorily negligent, as was the City. (See Gonzalez Deposition, Motion, Ex. B.) Settling Defendant has also provided analysis on the Tech-Bilt factors, including Plaintiffs’ potential recovery and his lack of assets or income. (See Motion, pp. 8-12.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes the settlement between Plaintiffs Loujuana Francis, as Successor-In-Interest to the Estate of Garry Francis, and as Guardian Ad Litem to minors C.W.F. and B.F.F. and Defendant Jose Luis Gonzalez was made in good faith. The unopposed Motion for Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.

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.

[1] Rodriguez is named as a defendant in the body, and not the caption, of the FAC. (See FAC, ¶ 11.) Rodriguez and Galdamez have not filed Answers to Plaintiffs’ FAC.

[2] Galdamez was dismissed from City’s cross-complaint on September 2, 2022.

[3] The Court approved the Petitions for Minor’s Compromise on November 22, 2021.