Judge: Linda S. Marks, Case: 2019-01117443, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement filed by Bacco Mechanical, Inc. on 7/14/22

The Motion was filed on 7/14/2022 by Defendant/ Cross-Complainant Bacco Mechanical, Inc. seeking determination that the settlement reached between Plaintiff, GARDEN COMMUNITIES, INC., Defendant/Cross-Complainant, BACCO MECHANICAL INC., and Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant, ECO MECHANICAL, INC was in good faith. Because the motion was not set to be heard until 11/7/2022, the opposition was not due until 10/25. [Opp was filed 10/26.]

However, on 8/5/2022 Defendant/Cross-Complainant, BACCO MECHANICAL, INC also filed an “Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement” of the same settlement, which gave any non-settling party 20-25 days to file a Motion to Contest. [CCP § 877.6(a)(2)]

Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant HIGH END DEVELOPMENT, INC. did file a Motion to Contest on 8/26/2022 (ROA 299), which is set for 1/9/2023.

Tentative Ruling:  This motion is continued to be heard with the Motion to Contest currently set for 1/9/2023

NOTE: Whether the settlement was within the “good faith ballpark” is to be evaluated based on information available at the time of settlement, including:

· • A rough approximation of plaintiffs' total recovery and the settlor's proportionate liability; [In the motion, Bacco focusses solely on the total amount of damages against it, and not a rough approximation of Plaintiff’s total recovery. Also, Bacco focusses on itself, but there is another settling co-defendant, Eco-Mechanical, Inc.]

· • The amount paid in settlement; [$1.2M]

· • A recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than if found liable after a trial;

· • The allocation of the settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; [Note: This is apparently a global settlement, but it is unclear how the settlement is allocated between the cases.]

· • The settlor's financial condition and insurance policy limits, if any; and [There are two settling defendants here, but the financial condition and insurance policy limits have not been adequately set forth as to either.]

· • Evidence of any collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct between the settlor and the plaintiffs aimed at making the nonsettling parties pay more than their fair share. [Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assocs., supra, 38 C3d at 499, 213 CR at 263-264]

Another key factor is the settling tortfeasor's potential liability for indemnity to joint tortfeasors. [Far West Fin'l Corp. v. D & S Co. (1988) 46 C3d 796, 816, 251 CR 202, 215, fn. 16; Long Beach Memorial Med. Ctr. v. Sup.Ct. (Connors) (2009) 172 CA4th 869, 873, 91 CR3d 494, 500]