Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: BC680294, Date: 2023-01-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC680294 Hearing Date: January 10, 2023 Dept: C
MYERS, ET AL. v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
CASE NO.: BC680294
HEARING: 01/10/23
#5
TENTATIVE ORDER
Defendant CITY OF COMPTON’s unopposed Motion for
Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.
Moving party to give notice.
Background
This action was initiated on October 19, 2017. The operative
First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges that Defendants illegally dumped several
tons of dirt on Alameda Street, a public right of way without permission and
without warning signs to the public. On April 9, 2017, Decedent Rodney Myers,
Sr. rode his motorcycle straight into the dirt, causing his death. Based
thereon, the FAC asserts causes of action for:
1.
Negligence (v. Walsh Shea)
2.
Negligence (v. HNTB)
3.
Negligence (v. J.F. Shea Construction, Inc.)
4.
Negligence (v. Comstock Company (ARUP))
5.
Premises Liability v. (City of Compton).
Defendant City of Compton (hereinafter “City”) now moves for
determination of good faith settlement. As of January 5, 2023, no oppositions
have been filed.
Trial is set for January 18, 2023.
Determination of Good Faith Settlement
Legal
Standard
California Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6(a)(1), provides,
in relevant part, that, on noticed motion, “[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 . . . .” “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
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. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 877(a).)
There is no precise method to determine whether parties
entered into a good faith settlement. (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde
Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 495.) The court must balance between the
public policy favoring settlements and the competing policy favoring equitable
allocation of costs between tortfeasors. (Id. at 498-99.) To accomplish
this, the California Supreme Court provided the following factors for
determining whether a proposed settlement is based on good faith: (1) a rough
approximation of plaintiff’s total recovery and the settling defendant’s
proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) allocation of
settlement amounts among plaintiffs; (4) recognition that a settlor should pay
less in settlement than it would if it were found liable after trial; (5)
financial conditions and insurance policy limits of the settling defendant; and
(6) the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the
interests of non-settling defendants. (Id. at 499-500.) The burden of proof in
asserting that a settlement lacked good faith falls upon the party making the
assertion and it must show that “the settlement is so far ‘out of the ballpark’
in relation to these factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable
objectives of [CCP § 877.6].” (Ibid.)
Merits
City moves for a determination of good faith settlement
pursuant to Section 877.6. In accordance with Plaintiffs’ two offers to
compromise dated October 1, 2019, City has agreed to a settlement amounting to
$250,000 for each Plaintiff in exchange for a dismissal of all claims against
it with prejudice. (Aviles Decl. ¶¶ 8, 11-13.)
In this case, Plaintiffs’ theory of liability against City
is premised on the allegations that City had notice of the illegally dumped
dirt prior to the accident, failed to correct it in a reasonable time, and
failed to warn of the dangerous condition.
The Court finds that the settlement between Plaintiffs and City
was entered in good faith under the Tech-Bilt, Inc. factors.
Preliminarily, the instant motion is unopposed. Further, the motion itself sets
forth the grounds of good faith and is accompanied by a declaration which sets
forth a brief background of the case in support of the above findings. (City
of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261; see
generally Aviles Decl.) For instance, based on the evidence, it is uncertain whether
a jury will determine that the City is liable for Decedent’s accident because there
are no eyewitnesses to how the accident occurred, facts pertaining to when the
dirt was illegally dumped is based upon hearsay, and there is no evidence the City
had actual or constructive notice of the dirt’s presence prior to the accident.
(Motion at pg. 7.) Additionally, documentation is limited regarding Decedent’s
financial support of the Plaintiffs. (Id.) Consequently, the offered
settlement is proportionate to City’s liability and a rough approximation of
Plaintiffs’ total recovery. Furthermore, the amount paid in settlement and the
allocation of the settlement proceeds between the Plaintiffs is reasonable
because it is based on the offers to compromise that Plaintiffs’ proposed.
(Motion at pg. 8.) Moreover, it is recognized that City should pay less in
settlement. (Id.; see also Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at 499.) Finally,
there is no evidence of the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct
aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants. (Motion at pg. 9; Aviles
Decl. ¶ 14.) This is further
corroborated by the fact that the nonsettling defendants have not asserted any
claims for indemnity or contribution against City.
Accordingly, the motion for determination of good faith
settlement is GRANTED.