Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case 21STCV46786 2023-02-27 Tentative Ruling

RUSSELL PATTEN, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

CASE NO.: 21STCV46786

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES’ MOTION TO CHALLENGE THE GOOD FAITH OF A SETTLEMENT BETWEEN CROSS-DEFENDANT TONY TATUM AND PLAINTIFFS; CITY OF CARSON’S OPPOSITION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT TATUM’S MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.
February 27, 2023

On December 23, 2021, plaintiff Russell Patten, individually and as the successor-in-interest to and administrator of the Estate of Daniel Patten II (“Decedent”), along with plaintiff Jennifer Patten (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed this action against defendants City of Carson (“City”), County of Los Angeles (“County”) (also erroneously sued as “Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department”), the State of California, acting by and through the California Highway Patrol (“State”), and the California Department of Transportation (“CalTrans”). Plaintiffs also named Alonzo Salazar (“Salazar”) and Gustavo Tarin-Cruz (“Tarin-Cruz”) as individual defendants. The action arises from illegal drag racing between Tony Tatum (“Tatum”) and Henry Hurtado (“Hurtado”). Plaintiffs allege that Salazar and Tarin-Cruz were involved in organizing, coordinating, and starting the race between Tatum and Hurtado; Plaintiffs did not name Tatum and Hurtado as defendants.

On August 8, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

On August 16, 2022, City filed a cross-complaint against Tatum and Hurtado for indemnity, apportionment of fault, declaratory relief, and contribution.

On October 21, 2022, Tatum filed a notice of settlement and application for determination of good faith settlement. On November 14, 2022, County filed a motion to challenge the good faith settlement between Plaintiffs and Tatum. On November 15, 2022, City filed an opposition to Tatum’s application for determination of good faith settlement.

On December 30, 2022, the Court issued a minute order wherein the Court stated its inclination to find that the settlement was made with good faith and deny the City’s and County’s motions. However, because Tatum had not submitted a declaration of no assets, the Court continued the hearing on the instant motion to allow Tatum an opportunity to file a supplemental declaration of no assets. The Court further directed that any party opposing the finding of good faith should file a supplemental brief, not to exceed five pages.

The Court notes that County filed a supplemental brief on February 1, 2023, requesting a continuance of the instant motion because City has given ex parte notice that it seeks to depose Tatum and County would like to attend the taking of Tatum’s deposition and to review Tatum’s supplemental declaration before filing a supplemental brief. The Court, however, denied City’s ex parte application requesting leave to depose Tatum.

On February 14, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation to continue the trial date and discovery. The parties also stipulated to continue the hearing on the good faith settlement to April 24, 2023, at 1:30 pm.

The Court further notes that Tatum has yet to file a supplemental declaration.

Accordingly, the hearing is CONTINUED to April 24, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. Any supplemental declaration by Tatum should be filed by April 3, 2023. Any party opposing the finding of good faith should file a supplemental brief, not to exceed five pages, by April 10, 2023.

Moving party to give notice.

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. 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.