Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case 19STCV11578 2023-03-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 19STCV11578, Date: 2023-03-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV11578 Hearing Date: March 9, 2023 Dept: C

ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE INSURANCE PLC v. JMI SANITATION SERVICES

CASE NO.: 19STCV11578

HEARING: 03/09/23

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendants BARRY WEHMILLER DESIGN GROUP, INC. and DESIGN GROUP FACILITY SOLUTIONS, INC.’s unopposed Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED. CCP §877.6.

Moving Party to give Notice.

No Opposition(s) filed as of March 7, 2023.

In determining the good faith of a settlement, the Court must balance the public policy favoring settlements with that favoring equitable sharing of costs among tortfeasors. To do so, the settlement must be within the reasonable range of the settling tortfeasor’s share of liability for the Plaintiff’s injuries, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the particular case. (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.) The Tech-Bilt court set forth the factors to be considered by the court in making the determination, such as: (1) the rough approximation of claimant’s total recovery and the settling parties’ proportional liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) the allocation of settlement proceeds among claimants; (4) recognition that a settling party should pay less in settlement than he would if he were liable after trial; (5) the settling party’s financial condition; (6) insurance policy limits of settling respondents; and (7) existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interest of non-settling parties. Furthermore, the practical considerations require that the evaluation be made on the basis of information available at the time of the settlement. (Id.) In sum, “a defendant’s settlement future must not be grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person, at the time of the settlement, would estimate the settling defendant’s liability be.” (Id.) Thus, as long as settlement is not so far “out of the ballpark” in relation to these factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of CCP §877.6, the settlement shall be determined as being made in good faith. (Id. 499-500.)

While a non-settling party bears the ultimate burden of showing that a settlement was not in good faith, the moving party must make a sufficient showing of all Tech-Bilt factors, either in the original moving papers, or in counter-declarations filed after opposition has been filed. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 92 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1262.)

The parties have been apprised of the settlement terms, and the amount to be paid in the settlement ($900,000.00). As of March 7, 2023, no Opposition(s) to the instant Motion have been filed. The unopposed Motion for determination of good faith settlement is GRANTED. The legal standards and requirements of CCP §877.6 and of Tech-Bilt v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488 are all met.