Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV42993, Date: 2023-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV42993    Hearing Date: August 16, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     August 16, 2023                     TRIAL DATE:  October 27, 2023

CASE:                         Claudette Leslie, et al. v. Meridian Management Association, et al.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV42993

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants Meridian Management, LLC, Theodore Lenz, and Robert Lenz 

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          BACKGROUND

            On November 11, 2021, Plaintiffs, Claudette Leslie and Brandon Heredia, filed this premises liability action.  On January 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, against Defendants, Meridian Management, LLC (“Meridian”), Theodore Lenz, Robert Lenz, and the City of Torrance (“City”), alleging that asphalt improperly placed over a concrete sidewalk caused Plaintiff Claudette Leslie to trip and fall.  Meridian and the Lenz Defendants, on one side, and City, on the other, have filed Cross-Complaints against each other for indemnity.

            On May 11, 2023, Meridian Management, LLC and Lenz Defendants (hereafter, “Settling Defendant”) filed this Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement. 

            The motion is unopposed.[1]

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

            To buy their peace, Settling Defendants, who may have no liability, agreed to pay a settlement amount of $26,000 to Plaintiff.  There is no opposition.   

IV.       CONCLUSION

            As this Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is unopposed, the Court finds that the settlement between Plaintiff Claudette Leslie and Defendants Meridian Management, LLC, Theodore Lenz, and Robert Lenz was made in good faith.

            Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   August 15, 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.