Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV10808, Date: 2023-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV10808    Hearing Date: November 16, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

                    I.INTRODUCTION 

On March 19, 2021, Plaintiff, Antonia Yolanda Lopez Lezama, filed this action against

Defendants Anisa Khamvongsa and Ratsamy N. Khamvongsa (“Khamvongsa Defendants”),

Mohammad Nazrul Islam (“Islam”), LA City Cab LLC (“City Cab”), and Access Services, for

injuries and damages Plaintiff sustained in a motor vehicle collision as a passenger in a taxicab.

On May 4, 2021, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Tri-City Transportation Systems, Inc.

(“Tri-City”) as Doe 1.

On June 4, 2021, City Cab and Tri-City filed a cross-complaint against the Khamvongsa

Defendants. On July 23, 2021, Access Services filed a cross-complaint against the Khamvongsa

Defendants. On October 6, 2022, the Khamvongsa Defendants filed a cross-complaints against

Islam, City Cab and Access Services.

                 II.LEGAL STANDARD 

California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (a)(1), provides, in relevant part, that, on noticed motion, “[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 . . . .”  “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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (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.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 877, subd. (a).) 

“The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).) 

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: 

This court notes that of the hundreds of motions for good faith determination presented for trial court approval each year, the overwhelming majority are unopposed and granted summarily by the trial court.  At the time of filing in many cases, the moving party does not know if a contest will develop.  If each motion required a full recital by declaration or affidavit setting forth a complete factual response to all of the Tech-Bilt factors, literally thousands of attorney hours would be consumed and inch-thick motions would have to be read and considered by trial courts in an exercise which would waste valuable judicial and legal time and clients’ resources. . .. That is to say, when no one objects, the barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is sufficient. 

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. 

(192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1260-1261 [citation omitted].) 

In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499, the California Supreme Court identified the following nonexclusive factors courts are to consider in determining if a settlement is in good faith under section 877.6: “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.  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.” 

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., supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 499.)  “‘[A] defendant’s settlement figure must not be grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person, at the time of the settlement, would estimate the settling defendant’s liability to be.’ [Citation.]”  (Ibid.) 

“The party asserting the lack of good faith, who has the burden of proof on that issue (§ 877.6, subd. (d)), should be permitted to demonstrate, if he can, that the settlement is so far ‘out of the ballpark’ in relation to these factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute.  Such a demonstration would establish that the proposed settlement was not a ‘settlement made in good faith’ within the terms of section 877.6.”  (Id. at pp. 499-500.) 

“[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.  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.  [Citation.]”  (TSI Seismic Tenant Space, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 159, 166.) 

              III.DISCUSSION 

Defendant Anisa Khamvongsa and Ratsamy N. Khamvongsa move to have the court determine that the settlement agreement was entered in good faith.

1. Burden:

“The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).) Here, Plaintiff has the burden to prove that the good faith settlement should be denied. On September 25, 2023, Defendants LA City Cab, LLC, Access Services, and Tri-City Transportation Systems, Inc., filed a Notice of Non-Opposition. As November 13, 2023, no opposition has been filed.

2. Factors:

To determine whether settlement has been in good faith, courts look at certain factors. In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499, the California Supreme Court identified the following nonexclusive factors courts are to consider in determining if a settlement is in good faith under section 877.6: “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.  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.”

3. Analysis:

This matter arises out of a motor vehicle accident on the 101 Freeway.

Here, Defendants are insured through Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club. The policy has a limit of $20,000 per person and $40,000 per accident. The parties reached the settlement through negotiations. On February 11, 2021, the proposal to settle the matter for $20,000 was sent to Plaintiff’s former counsel. (Motion 3: 26-28.) After filing the complaint on March 19, 2021, Plaintiff then signed the settlement agreement on July 4, 2021, to resolve the matter for $20,000. On August 4, 2021, Plaintiff passed away, and Plaintiff’s daughter moved to substitute in as successor-in-interest on April 26, 2023.

Defendants argue that there are no disputes to prevent the Court from enforcing the settlement agreement. Moreover, the settlement was entered into in good faith, as it is in “the ballpark” and “represented the entirety of the single person limits fo Defendants’ insurance policy.” (Motion 8: 5-6.)

The Tech-Bilt factors have been satisfied. The parties engaged in settlement negotiations. Additionally, the total amount of $20,000 is within insurance policy limits. Moreover, prior to her death, Plaintiff signed a settlement agreement, which is evidence that the parties were amenable to these terms. While there was an almost two-year gap between Plaintiff’s death and a motion to be appointed as successor in interest, the Court finds that it is irrelevant at this time. Going to trial would incur additional fees and costs. Lastly, and significantly, as of November 13, 2023, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.

              IV.CONCLUSION 

Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.

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: November 16, 2023