Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV01777, Date: 2023-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01777, Date: 2023-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01777 Hearing Date: December 13, 2023 Dept: C

garcia v. concrete collaborative

CASE NO.: 22NWCV01777

HEARING: 12/13/23 @ 9:30 AM

Plaintiffs’ Application for Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiffs Dominic Garcia and Manual Martinez move for an order granting determination of good faith settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendant Sadlerstone, LLC dba Concrete Collaborative

Background

This is a Breach of Contract action by Plaintiffs against Defendants Natural Stone Fabricators, Inc., Concrete Collaborative, and Studio Palomino. Plaintiffs allege causes of action for:

1. Breach of Contract

2. Negligence

3. Fraud and Deceit

4. Intentional and Negligent Misrepresentation

5. Unfair Business Practices

6. Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealings

Legal Standard

The trial court’s determination of good faith under CCP § 877.6 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

The first issue is whether Defendant Concrete Collaborative is a suspended entity and, thus, cannot benefit from a determination of good faith settlement under CCP § 877.6. Natural Stone argues that its search of Concrete Collaborative revealed that Concrete Collaborative, LLC was suspended. However, as reflected in the Settlement Agreement, the true name of Concrete Collaborative is Sadlerstone, LLC dba Concrete Collaborative (Salderstone). (Boyes Decl., Ex. A.) Thus, this Court does not have evidence that Defendant Concrete Collaborative is a suspended entity and cannot benefit from a determination of good faith settlement.

Plaintiffs and Salderstone (Settling Parties) seek to settle for $12,232.69. The Court determines that this is a good faith settlement because the First Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs were charged $12,232.69 for their order from Sadlerstone. Thus, the Settlement Agreement is for the amount Sadlerstone’s proportional liability. Further, Natural Stone has not opposed the Application on the grounds that the amount is not in good faith.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Application for Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.