Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 223STCV20307, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 223STCV20307, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 223STCV20307 Hearing Date: December 6, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

Hearing Date: 12/6/24

CASE NO./NAME: 23STCV20307 IVAN JAVIER BURGOS et al. vs KENNETH PANITZ et al.

Moving Party: Plaintiff Ivan Burgos

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: GRANTED

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.)

Discussion

On August 23, 2023, Plaintiffs Ivan Burgos and Daniel Burgos filed their complaint against Defendants Kenneth Panitz, Mirna Panitz, Parts Authority, LLC, and Steven Mendoza. On or about September 24, 2024, Plaintiff Ivan Javier Burgos and Defendants Kenneth Panitz and Mirna Panitz reached a settlement for the Defendants’ policy limit of $100,000.00. Plaintiff now moves the Court for a determination of good faith settlement. None of the other Defendants filed an opposition to this motion.

Since the motion is unopposed, the standard for granting it is less stringent; a simple motion setting forth the grounds of good faith along with a declaration providing a brief background of the case is sufficient. Plaintiff has not only satisfied this basic requirement but has also exceeded it by discussing the various Tech-Bilt factors in detail.

Given that the settlement represents the policy limit of $100,000.00, Plaintiff has demonstrated that it falls within the "reasonable range" required for a finding of good faith. No other party filed an opposition disputing the fairness of the settlement.

Accordingly, the 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.