Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case 20STCV08517 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 20STCV08517, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV08517 Hearing Date: May 17, 2023 Dept: C

Tan et al. v. Superprint lithographics et al.

CASE NO.: 20STCV08517

HEARING: 5/17/23 @ 1:30 PM

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Superprint Lithographics, Inc.’s motion for determination of good faith settlement is GRANTED contingent upon the approval of petitions for minor’s compromise for the minor Plaintiffs Liam Huang and Leanna Huang.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Superprint Lithographics, Inc. moves for determination of good faith settlement pursuant to CCP § 887.6c.

Legal Standard

The trial court’s determination of good faith as to a Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 877.6 application must take into account “a number of factors,” including total recovery and 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; see also Far West Financial Corp. v. D&S Co.¿(1988) 46 Cal.3d 796, 816, fn. 16 [expanding on Tech-Bilt factors].)¿ “If section 877.6 is to serve the ends of justice, it must prevent a party from purchasing protection from its indemnification obligation at bargain-basement prices.” (Long Beach Memorial Medical Center v. Superior Court¿(2009) 172 Cal.App.4th¿865, 876.)¿

“[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.” (Torres v. Union Pacific R. Co.¿(1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 499, 509.)¿¿If the settlement is not so far “out of the ballpark” in relation to the above factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of CCP § 877.6, the settlement shall be determined as being made in good faith. (Tech-Bilt,¿supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 499—500.)

Discussion

This is a wrongful death case arising from a workplace accident, involving Huolin Huang (Decedent) at Defendant Superprint Lithographics, Inc. (Superprint). At the time of the accident, Decedent was operating a die cutting machine owned by Superprint and purchased from Defendant KO Tai International Development, Inc. Plaintiff Xishi Tan is the wife of Decedent and Plaintiffs Liam Huang and Leanne Huang are the minor children of Decedent (collectively “Plaintiffs”).

Superprint has agreed to pay Plaintiffs $500,000.00 in exchange for a release of all liability from Plaintiffs.

The settlement entered into between Plaintiffs and Superprint is in good faith because the Tech-bilt factors weigh in favor of a finding of good faith. Superprint argues that the potential total recovery is not “a large sum” because Superprint disputes the only cause of action against it, Superprint disputes that there was evidence to support the cause of action, and it argues that the evidence established that the design of the machine was defective. Superprint argues that the $500,000.00 is within the realm of likely potential judgment because the evidence does not support Plaintiffs’ cause of action against Superprint. Further, Plaintiffs and Superprint came to the settlement after attending mediation. Additionally, the motion is unopposed. $500,000.00 is not so far “out of the ballpark” as to be inconsistent with CCP § 877.6. Therefore, the settlement is in good faith within the meaning of CCP § 877.6(a).

The Court notes that there are no pending petitions for minor’s compromise. Thus, the granting of this Motion is contingent upon the approval of petitions for minor’s compromise for Plaintiffs Liam Huang and Leanne Huang.

Accordingly, Defendant Superprint Lithographics, Inc.’s motion for determination of good faith settlement is GRANTED contingent upon the approval of petitions for minor’s compromise for the minor Plaintiffs Liam Huang and Leanna Huang.