Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV05886, Date: 2024-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV05886    Hearing Date: November 14, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

Hearing Date: 11/14/24 

CASE NO./NAME: 21STCV05886 MATTHEW MARTINEZ vs PETER BARAJAS, et al.

Moving Party: Cross Defendant Joel Aguirre 

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: Sufficient 

Ruling: Granted 

Background

On February 16, 2021, Plaintiff Matthew Martinez filed a lawsuit against Defendants City of Los Angeles and Peter Barajas, alleging personal injuries from a motor vehicle accident on January 9, 2019. Cross-Defendant Joel Adan Aguirre, who was driving at the time of the incident with Plaintiff as a passenger, was not initially named in the Complaint. Subsequently, the City of Los Angeles filed a Cross-Complaint against Aguirre, seeking indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief. Aguirre reached a settlement with Plaintiff for $2,000 through his insurer, James River Insurance Company, and executed a formal settlement agreement with Plaintiff. Aguirre now moves for a determination of good faith settlement, seeking an order that would preclude any contribution or indemnity claims against him by the non-settling defendants, including the City of Los Angeles and Barajas, based on comparative negligence or fault. An opposition to this motion has not been filed, nor are there any other filings opposing the settlement at issue.

Legal Standard

CCP section 877.6(a)(1) provides that “[a]ny party to an action wherein it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff . . . and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors . . . .” (Code. Civ. Proc., § 877.6(a)(1).) “A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.”¿(Id., § 877.6(c).)¿Although a determination that a settlement was in good faith does not discharge any other party from liability, “it shall reduce the claims against the others in the amount stipulated” by the settlement.¿(Id., § 877(a).) 

Factors to consider in determining if a settlement was made in good faith include “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.)¿“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, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 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.)

“The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6(d).)¿The party asserting the lack of good faith can establish that the proposed settlement was not a settlement made in good faith by showing the settlement is so far “out of the ballpark” in relation to the Tech-Bilt factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute.¿(Tech-Bilt, Inc., supra, 38 Cal.3d at 499-500.)

Unopposed Motion

An unopposed motion for determination of good faith of settlement need not contain a full and complete discussion of the Tech-Bilt factors (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488) by declaration or affidavit; rather, a bare bones motion setting forth the grounds of good faith and a declaration containing a brief background of the case is sufficient. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.)¿  

Analysis and Conclusion

The present motion is unopposed, and there are no other filings objecting to the settlement at issue. The motion demonstrates that the settlement agreement was reached in good faith. It also contained a brief background of the case. The moving party has made a sufficient showing. Thus, Settling Defendants’ Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement IS GRANTED 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion.