Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV25702, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25702    Hearing Date: January 5, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.                   INTRODUCTION

On August 9, 2022, Plaintiffs Gerard De Zern (“De Zern”) and Laurie E Yockey (“Yockey”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) initiated this premises liability action against Defendants A and C Roofing, Inc., A and C Roofing dba Roof Repair Specialist, Action Hauling, Inc., and Barrett Business Services, Inc. L/C/F Action Hauling Inc., asserting the following causes of action: (1) general negligence; (2) premises liability; and (3) loss of consortium. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants created a dangerous condition at Plaintiff’s home, located at 1765 Monte Cista St., Pasadena, California, by covering the walkway steps and adjacent area with tarp, and, as a result, Plaintiff De Zern fell when he tripped along the walkway and injured himself.

On November 10, 2022, Defendant A and C Roofing Inc. dba Roof Repair Specialist (erroneously sued as, “A and C Roofing, Inc.”) filed its answer to the complaint and filed a cross-complaint against Defendants Action Hauling, Inc. and Barrett Business Services, Inc. L/C/F Action Hauling Inc. for implied indemnity, comparative contribution, total equitable indemnity, and declaratory relief.

On March 3, 2023, Defendant Action Hauling, Inc. filed its answer to the Complaint and filed a cross-complaint against A and C Roofing Inc. dba Roof Repair Specialist for implied indemnity, equitable indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.

On March 21, 2023, Plaintiffs stipulated to dismiss Barrett Business Services, Inc. L/C/F Action Hauling Inc. from the Complaint.

On December 1, 2023, Defendant Action Hauling, Inc. filed the instant Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement based on its settlement with Plaintiffs.

Trial is currently set for April 30, 2024.

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).)  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).) 

In order 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; (6) the settlor’s financial condition and insurance policy limits; and (7) 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 (Tech-Bilt).)  These factors will be evaluated according to what information is available at the time of settlement.  (Ibid.) 

“The trial court’s section 877.6 determination ‘should be made on the basis of experience rather than speculation.’  [Citation.]  ‘When testing the good faith of a settlement figure, a court may enlist the guidance of the judge’s personal experience and of experts in the field.  [Citation.]’”  (Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 960.) 

III.             DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs and Defendant Action Hauling, Inc. have reached a settlement agreement in which Plaintiffs agree to settle their claims against Defendant Action Hauling, Inc. in exchange for $1,000,000.00. No opposition has been filed. Without such opposition, the non-settling tortfeasors or obligors have clearly not met their burden of demonstrating the absence of good faith in the settlement.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).)

            Further, as a matter of the Court’s personal experience, this settlement for approximately 1/3 of the total damages Plaintiff seeks is clearly within the ballpark of meeting defendant’s liability for the injuries that occurred.  Further, given the public policy of favoring settlement, no basis exists to reject this settlement.

            Accordingly, the instant application 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 this 5th day of January 2024