Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV36995, Date: 2025-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36995    Hearing Date: January 30, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

On November 23, 2022, Plaintiff David Rubio filed a complaint against Defendant Nicholas Di Fruscia as Personal Representative of the Estate of Christopher Boutelle and the City of Los Angeles. Plaintiff alleged that on November 22, 2021, he was driving a 2006 Freightliner Sprinter Van south on San Fernando Road approaching Sepulveda Boulevard when Christopher Boutelle, who was traveling north, attempted a left turn onto Sepulveda. Due to heavy traffic, Boutelle was unable to complete the turn and collided head-on with Plaintiff's vehicle. As a result of the collision, Boutelle died, and Plaintiff sustained fractures to his right leg and both feet.

Plaintiff and Defendant Di Fruscia entered into a settlement agreement for $925,000. This settlement includes $250,000 from Boutelle’s auto insurance policy and an additional $675,000 from Boutelle’s estate. The Settling Defendant now moves the court for determination of good faith settlement. No opposition to this motion has been filed, and there are no other filings objecting to 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 whether 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 must be based on the 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 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 during negotiations and contains a brief background of the case. The settlement amount of $925,000 represents a reasonable sum given the injuries sustained by Plaintiff and the policy limits available. The moving party has made a sufficient showing. Thus, Settling Defendant’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.

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’s 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.