TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Ashley Wachsman, M.D.’s Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.

Any other joint tortfeasors or co-obligors are barred from asserting any further claims against Defendant Ashley Wachsman, M.D. based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.

Defendant Ashley Wachsman, M.D. to give notice. 

REASONING

To determine whether a settlement was in “good faith” the court should inquire as to whether the amount of the settlement is “within the reasonable range” of the settling defendant’s proportional share of comparative liability for the plaintiff’s injuries. (Abbott Ford, Inc. v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 858, 872.) Ultimately, the “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.” (Tech-Bilt v. Woodward-Clyde & Assocs. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499 (Tech-Bilt).) In determining the good faith of a settlement, the court should consider a number of factors, including: 

 

(1) A rough approximation of the total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability; 

(2) The actual settlement amount; 

(3) The allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; 

(4) The recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he or she would if liability is established after trial; 

(5) The financial conditions and insurance policy limits of the settlor; and 

(6) The existence of facts showing collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants. 

(Ibid.) Furthermore, the evaluation must “be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement.” (Ibid.)

The party contesting the settlement bears the burden of proving that the settlement is in bad faith. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).) Notably, when the good faith nature of a settlement is uncontested, the Court need not consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.) “[W]hen no one objects, the barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is sufficient.” (Ibid.)

Defendant Ashley Wachsman, M.D. (“Defendant”) moves the Court for a determination of good faith settlement with Plaintiff Glenn Provost (“Plaintiff”). The unopposed application describes the background of this case and the nature of the proposed settlement. Defendant argues that his role in the events at issue was limited, as he was not responsible for diagnosis, treatment, or management of the patient, and he has agreed to settle with Plaintiff for a dismissal with prejudice in exchange for a waiver of his right to assert a malicious prosecution claim against Plaintiff. The Court recognizes that Plaintiff could recover damages at trial if Plaintiff were able to establish Defendant’s liability at trial, but any liability is disputed, and the application provides sufficient reasoning as to why the settlement was reached in good faith. Thus, the Court finds that Defendant has sufficiently demonstrated a settlement made in good faith. Accordingly, Defendant Ashley Wachsman, M.D.’s Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED. Any other joint tortfeasors or co-obligors are barred from asserting any further claims against Defendant Ashley Wachsman, M.D. based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.