Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV06479, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV06479    Hearing Date: January 26, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On February 18, 2020, plaintiff Nakisa Nowzar (“Plaintiff”), filed this action against defendants Via Marina Tahiti HOA, Horizon Management Company, and Does 1 to 100 for injuries arising from a slip and fall on April 4, 2018.  On October 29, 2020, Plaintiff added Personal Touch Cleaning & Maintenance, Inc. (“Personal Touch”) as Doe 1.

On October 20, 2023, Defendants Via Marina Tahiti HOA and Horizon Management Company (“Settling Defendants”) filed an application for determination of good faith settlement after reaching a settlement with Plaintiff for the amount of $80,000. Defendant Personal Touch opposes.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

The Court must approve any settlement entered into by less than all joint tortfeasors or co-obligors.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6.)  This requirement furthers 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.)  If the settlement is made in good faith, the Court “shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor . . . for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (c).) 

“A determination as to the good faith of a settlement, within the meaning of section 877.6, necessarily requires the trial court to examine and weigh a number of relevant factors, one of the most important of which is the settling party’s proportionate liability.  In making such examination, the court must look at the state of the evidence as it exists at the time the motion for a good faith determination is heard.  [Citation.]  If . . . there is no substantial evidence to support a critical assumption as to the nature and extent of a settling defendant’s liability, then a determination of good faith based upon such assumption is an abuse of discretion.”  (Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 864, 871; L.C. Rudd & Son, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 742, 750 [“It is the burden of the settling parties to explain to the court and to all other parties the evidentiary basis for any allocations and valuations made sufficient to demonstrate that a reasonable allocation was made”].) 

The non-settling tortfeasors or obligors bear the burden of demonstrating the absence of good faith in the settlement.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).)  To demonstrate a lack of good faith, the non-settling party must show that the settlement is so far “out of the ballpark” as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of Section 877.6.  (Nutrition Now, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 209, 213.)  The Court will typically consider: (1) the plaintiff’s (roughly) approximated total recovery; (2) the settlor’s share of liability; (3) the size of the settlement at issue; (4) the distribution of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (5) the usual discount value when plaintiffs settle before trial; the settlor’s financial condition and insurance policy limits; and (6) whether there is evidence of “collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.”  (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.)  These factors will be evaluated accordingly to what information is available at the time of settlement.  (Ibid.)

III.        DISCUSSION

Although the burden is on the non-settling defendants in opposing a good faith settlement, Plaintiff and the Settling Defendants have not sufficiently met the contentions of Defendant Personal Touch.  Specifically, Plaintiff and the Settling Defendants have not provided any discussion as to Plaintiff’s approximated total recovery.  As to their allocation of liability, Settling Defendants admit that they are responsible for the leaking pipes and maintenance of them, but assert that Personal Touch is primarily responsible for the damages due to their negligence in failing to clean the subject area on the date of the incident. However, Personal Touch provides evidence that Settling Defendants also had a duty and responsibility to monitor the area. Accordingly, there is insufficient information to justify Settling Defendants’ assertion that Personal Touch is primarily liable for the damages. More significantly, Settling Defendants provide no discussion as to Plaintiff’s rough approximation of total recovery such that the Court could evaluate whether $80,000 is a reasonable allocation.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.          

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.  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.

        Dated this 26th day of January 2024