SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

Background 

On March 15, 2022, Defendant Rane was involved in a car-to-car collision with a Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) bus. On October 18, 2022, Plaintiff Taylor, a passenger on the bus, filed a personal injury lawsuit against LACMTA and Rane. Defendant Rane, in the consolidated case 22STCV37815, filed suit against LACMTA for the subject incident. On November 18, 2024, a global mediation facilitated by mediator Troy Roe took place. During the mediation, Rane and Taylor reached a mutually acceptable settlement agreement for $100,000.00. Defendant Rane now moves the Court for a determination of good faith settlement. Defendant LACMTA opposes. 

 

Legal Standard¿ 

In a case involving two or more alleged joint tortfeasors, a party may seek a court order under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 determining that a settlement between the plaintiff and one or more of the alleged tortfeasors is in good faith. A judicial determination of good faith “bar[s] any other joint tortfeasor … 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(c).)  

In evaluating whether a settlement has been made in good faith, courts consider the following factors, as set forth by the California Supreme Court in the landmark case Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488: 

     1) “a rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery”;  

     2) “the settlor’s proportionate liability”;  

3) “the amount paid in settlement”;  

      4) “the allocation of the settlement proceeds among plaintiffs”;  

5) “a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial”;  

     6) the settling party's “financial conditions and insurance policy limits”;  

7) any evidence of “collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.”  

(Id. at 499.) “Practical considerations obviously require that the evaluation be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement.” (Ibid.)  

The “good faith” concept in Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 is a flexible principle imposing on reviewing courts the obligation to guard against the numerous ways in which the interests of nonsettling defendants may be unfairly prejudiced. (Rankin v. Curtis (1986) 183 Cal. App. 3d 939, 945.) Accordingly, under Tech-Bilt, the party asserting the lack of “good faith” may meet this burden by demonstrating that the settlement is so far "out of the ballpark" as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute. (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at 499-500.) Such a demonstration would establish that the proposed settlement was not a “settlement made in good faith” within the terms of section 877.6. (Ibid.)   

The Supreme Court explained that Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 is designed to further two equitable policies:   

1) encouragement of settlements; and   

2) equitable allocation of costs among joint tortfeasors.    

(Ibid.)    

Those policies would not be served by an approach which emphasizes one to the virtual exclusion of the other. (Ibid.) Accordingly, a settlement will not be found in good faith unless the amount is reasonable in light of the settling tortfeasor's proportionate share of liability. (Std. Pac. of San Diego v. A. A. Baxter Corp. (1986) 176 Cal. App. 3d 577, 589.) Or, as the California Supreme Court has stated, 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.” (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at 499.) 

Discussion 

The motion is denied without prejudice because Defendant failed to sufficiently address the Tech-Bilt factors required for a determination of good faith settlement. First, Defendant states that Taylor alleged Rane and Metro were at fault for his injuries, including neck and back pain, as well as 17 broken teeth. However, Defendant did not provide a rough approximation of Plaintiff’s total recovery. Without this approximation, the Court cannot assess whether the proposed $100,000.00 settlement is so "out of the ballpark" in relation to Taylor’s potential recovery as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6. 

Second, while Defendant notes that Rane and LACMTA dispute the nature and extent of Taylor’s injuries, Defendant acknowledges that the video evidence depicts an impact between Taylor and the metal framing inside the bus. Although Defendant offers some information regarding liability, it falls short of providing a rough approximation of the settlor’s proportionate liability, which is essential for the Court’s evaluation of the settlement’s reasonableness.  

For such an evaluation, the Court requires the settlement amount, an approximation of Plaintiff’s total recovery, and the settlor’s proportionate liability. Only after these elements are provided can the Court properly consider other relevant factors, such as policy limits and the stage of litigation, to determine whether the settlement was made in good faith. 

Because Defendant has either failed to discuss or insufficiently discussed two critical factors, the motion is denied without prejudice. 

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.¿ 

¿ 

__________________________¿ 

Hon. Lee S. Arian¿¿ 

Judge of the Superior Court¿