Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 21STCV38524, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV38524, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV38524 Hearing Date: October 18, 2023 Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE: October 18, 2023 TRIAL DATE: Vacated

CASE: Letisia Torres, et al. v. Margaret Juarez, M.D., et al.

CASE NO.: 21STCV38524

APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Margaret Juarez, M.D. and San Gabriel Women’s Health, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: No opposition

I. BACKGROUND

On October 19, 2021, Plaintiffs, Letisia Torres, individually and as Guardian ad Litem for minor, Darlene Ramirez, and Cesar Ramirez, initiated this medical malpractice action against Defendants, Margaret Juarez, M.D., San Gabriel Women’s Health, Inc., and AHMC San Gabriel Valley Medical Center LP. Plaintiffs allege negligence for a failure to timely deliver Ms. Torres’ twins, Darlene and Jayleen, resulting in significant injuries to Darlene and ultimately the death of Jayleen.

On September 8, 2023, Dr. Juarez and San Gabriel Women’s Health, Inc. (hereafter, “Settling Defendants”) filed a Notice of Settlement and this Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement.

The application is unopposed.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

“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).)¿¿“Other relevant considerations include the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants, as well as the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.” ¿(Id.)¿¿¿

The evaluation of whether a settlement was made in good faith is¿ required to “be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement.”¿ (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 499.) ¿“[A] court not only looks at the alleged tortfeasor’s potential liability to the plaintiff, but it must also consider the culpability of the tortfeasor vis-à-vis other parties alleged to be responsible for the same injury.” ¿(TSI Seismic Tenant Space, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 159, 166.)¿ “Potential liability for indemnity to a nonsettling defendant is an important consideration for the trial court in determining whether to approve a settlement by an alleged tortfeasor.”¿ (Id.)¿¿

In City of Grand View Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261, the court provided the following guidance regarding a motion for a good faith settlement determination:¿¿

“If the good faith settlement is contested, section 877.6, subdivision (d), sets forth a workable ground rule for the hearing by placing the burden of proving the lack of good faith on the contesting party. Once there is a showing made by the settlor of the settlement, the burden of proof on the issue of good faith shifts to the nonsettlor who asserts that the settlement was not made in good faith. If contested, declarations by the nonsettlor should be filed which in many cases could require the moving party to file responsive counterdeclarations to negate the lack of good faith asserted by the nonsettling contesting party.”

III. DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Requirements

The notice, application, and proposed order must be served by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by personal service. If the nonsettling parties do not file a motion challenging the settlement 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).)¿¿ Here, Settling Defendants served AHC San Gabriel Valley Medical Center LP and Plaintiff with this Application by certified mail on September 8, 2023—more than 25 days before this hearing. The Application is uncontested. Settling Defendants have satisfied the procedural requirements.

B. Good Faith Determination

Plaintiffs have agreed to settle their claims against Settling Defendants.¿ Under the terms of the agreement, Settling Defendants agree to pay Plaintiffs the sum of $890,000, which represents a good faith estimate of Settling Defendants’ remaining policy limits.¿

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes the settlement between Plaintiffs Letisia Torres, individually and as Guardian ad Litem for minor, Darlene Ramirez, and Cesar Ramirez, and Defendants Margaret Juarez, M.D., and San Gabriel Women’s Health, Inc. was made in good faith.¿ The unopposed Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated: October 18, 2023 ___________________________________

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

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.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE: October 18, 2023 TRIAL DATE: Vacated

CASE: Letisia Torres, et al. v. Margaret Juarez, M.D., et al.

CASE NO.: 21STCV38524

PETITION TO APPROVE MINOR’S COMPROMISE

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Letisia Torres

RESPONDING PARTY: N/A

Claimant, Darlene Ramirez, a minor, by and through her parent and Guardian Ad Litem, Petitioner, Letisia Torres, agreed to settle her claims against Defendants, Margaret Juarez, M.D., and San Gabriel Valley Medical Center. Dr. Juarez agrees to pay $890,000 and San Gabriel Valley Medical Center agrees to pay $9,475,000, for a total sum of $10,365,000. If approved, $723,749.58 will be used for medical expenses, $82,139.62 will be used for attorney’s fees, and $82,139.62 will be used for other expenses, leaving a balance of $7,944,850.02 for Claimant.

The Petition was reviewed on September 12, 2023. The Court found the proposed settlement and requested attorney’s fees to be fair and reasonable. Because Claimant requested $2,940,950,39 of the settlement proceeds to be transferred into a proposed special needs trust (SNT), the Court referred the matter to the Court’s Probate Department for review of the proposed SNT prior to approval of the compromise.

The Probate Department reviewed the Petition and found the following defects in the proposed order: (1) Item 8b(3) has been checked but not completed; (2) The proposed order does not provide for court jurisdiction over the trust; (3) The proposed order properly requires first trust accounting in one year and sets 14 month calendar date. However, Petitioner must include the actual 14 month calendar date at paragraph 11 of Attachment 8a(2). Additionally, Petitioner must include the actual OSC date at paragraph 9 of Attachment 8a(2). For these reasons the Court, continued the hearing for the Petition to allow Petitioner to file a proposed order addressing those defects.

On October 16, 2023, Petitioner filed an amended proposed order and Petition.

Court approval is required for all settlements of a minor’s claim. (Probate Code §§ 3500, 3600, et seq.; Code Civ. Proc. § 372.) The petition must be verified and “must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing on the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition.”¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)¿¿

Petitioner has cured the defects noted in the Court’s previous order.

Accordingly, the Petition is GRANTED. The Court sets an OSC re: Status of Probate Case for December 18, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 27 of Spring Street Courthouse to determine if the petitioner has filed proof in the civil case that the trust file has been opened in the Probate Department of the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Per California Rules of Court, Rule 7.952, the Court finds that Claimant’s appearance at the hearing is not necessary but Petitioner is required to appear.

Dated: October 18, 2023 ___________________________________

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court