Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV12328, Date: 2022-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: November 1, 2022

Case Name: Rivera v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Case No.: 21STCV04162 

Matter: Motion Contesting Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Moving Party: Defendant City of Los Angeles

Responding Party: Defendants Good Samaritan Hospital and Presbyterian Intercommunity 

Hospital

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Application for Good Faith Settlement is granted, and the 

Motion Contesting said Application is denied. 

Defendant City of Los Angeles to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This is an action arising out of alleged negligent medical care of Plaintiff Dana Rivera. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Medical Negligence, (2) Negligence, (3) Racial Discrimination, (4) Negligent Supervising and Training, and (5) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.  The first and fifth causes of action are alleged against Defendant Good Samaritan Hospital.  The first, fourth, and fifth causes of action are alleged against Defendant Presbyterian Intercommunity Health, Inc.

Defendant City of Los Angeles has filed a Cross-Complaint for Indemnification, Apportionment of Fault, and Declaratory Relief as against Good Samaritan Hospital.

On July 20, 2022, Defendants Good Samaritan Hospital and Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital filed an Application for determination that their settlement with Plaintiff Dana Rivera was made in good faith pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6.  

The subject settlement provides that Plaintiff will dismiss Defendants Good Samaritan Hospital and Presbyterian Intercommunity from this action in exchange for a waiver of costs, fees, and any potential malicious prosecution claims.  

Defendant City of Los Angeles has filed a Motion Contesting that the aforementioned settlement was made in good faith.  Defendant contends that “a settlement for a waiver of costs, fees, and malicious prosecution claims in exchange for a dismissal, with prejudice, does not represent a rough approximation of plaintiff’s total potential recover[y] to their proportional share of liability. Additional Tech-Bilt criteria have also not been met. Settling defendants have neglected to provide information regarding the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries, medical specials, future medical specials or prognosis. Nor do settling defendants provide information regarding their financial condition or ability to contribute to the settling. There is no analysis as to settling defendants’ proportionate share of liability for plaintiff’s injuries (defendants argue that they have zero exposure) nor is there a discussion as to settling defendants’ potential liability on the City’s cross complaint.”

Under Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6, a good faith settlement discharges the settling defendant from liability for contribution or indemnity to any other joint tortfeasor.  Factors to be considered in determining whether a settlement was made in good faith include: (1) a rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery and the settlor's proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid; (3) the allocation among plaintiffs; (4) recognizing that the amount will normally be less than the defendant would pay upon losing at trial; (5) defendants’ insurance policy limits and financial condition; and (6) existence of collusion, fraud or tortious conduct aimed at injuring the interests of other defendants.  (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.)

It appears undisputed that Defendant Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital did not treat Plaintiff.  Given Presbyterian’s lack of involvement, the Court finds its settlement to adequately represent its proportionate liability in this action.

As to Defendant Good Samaritan Hospital, the Court finds that the settlement amount of $0 also appropriately represents its proportionate liability in that Defendant has come forth with evidence that (1) it cannot be liable for its physicians’ malpractice because these physicians are independent contractors and (2) Good Samaritan’s motion for summary judgment would likely have been granted because Plaintiff failed to oppose it with expert evidence, which is necessary to raise a triable issue of fact in a medical malpractice case (Hanson v. Grode (1999) 76 Cal. App.4th 601, 607).  While Plaintiff’s total recovery is not clear, 0% of any amount is 0.  

Additionally, there seems to be no issue with the allocation of the settlement as there is only one Plaintiff and the settlement amount is $0.

Further, the $0 settlement is obviously less than what Defendants would pay if they lost at trial. 

Next, while evidence of financial condition and insurance has not been provided, “Tech–Bilt does not require settling defendants to present such evidence. Rather, if anything, because [the City] had the burden to prove the settlement was not made in good faith, it could have presented evidence on those issues to show [Defendants] had the financial capacity or insurance coverage limits to pay a reasonable settlement amount.”  (Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 968.)  Defendant City of Los Angeles’ evidence on this point is not compelling.

Finally, there is no indication of fraud or collusion.

In sum, the Court finds that the Tech-Bilt factors support that the subject settlement was made in good faith.  The Motion to Contest is denied.  The Request for Judicial Notice is granted.

Defendant City of Los Angeles to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.