Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV04946, Date: 2023-12-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV04946    Hearing Date: February 13, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On February 8, 2021, Plaintiff Angela Walker (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Mike H. Davidyan (“Davidyan”), Estate of Thelma Atlas, and Does 1-25 for general negligence, premises liability, and dog bite. 

On May 26, 2021, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Joyce Faye Atlas (“Atlas”) as Doe 1. 

On August 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendants Davidyan, Atlas, and Does 1-25 for negligence, premises liability, and dog bite. 

On August 18, 2021, Davidyan filed an answer. 

On April 6, 2022, the clerk entered Atlas’s default.  On June 9, 2022, Atlas filed an answer. On July 25, 2022, the Court set aside Atlas’s default and ruled that her answer would stand. 

On April 10, 2023, Plaintiff amended the first amended complaint to include Defendant Johnny Harvey Fulcher (“Fulcher”) as Doe 2. On June 13, 2023, the clerk entered Fulcher’s default. 

On November 30, 2023, Atlas filed a motion for a determination that her settlement with Plaintiff is in good faith.  No opposition has been filed. 

On December 4, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for relief from jury waiver. 

Trial is currently scheduled for April 11, 2024. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Atlas asks the Court to find that her settlement with Plaintiff is in good faith. 

LEGAL STANDARD  

Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (a)(2), states that “a settling party may give notice of settlement to all parties and to the court, together with an application for determination of good faith settlement and a proposed order. The application shall indicate the settling parties, and the basis, terms, and amount of the settlement. The notice, application, and proposed order shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by personal service. Proof of service shall be filed with the court. Within 25 days of the mailing of the notice, application, and proposed order, or within 20 days of personal service, a nonsettling party may file a notice of motion to contest the good faith of the settlement. If none of the nonsettling parties files a motion within 25 days of mailing of the notice, application, and proposed order, or within 20 days of personal service, the court may approve the settlement. . . .” 

“The issue of the good faith of a settlement may be determined by the court on the basis of affidavits served with the notice of hearing, and any counteraffidavits filed in response, or the court may, in its discretion, receive other evidence at the hearing.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (b).)  

“The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).) 

          In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499 (Tech-Bilt), the California Supreme Court identified the following nonexclusive factors courts must consider in determining if a settlement is in good faith under section 877.6: “a rough approximation of plaintiffs' total recovery and the settlor's 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. Other relevant considerations include the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants, as well as the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.” 

The evaluation of a settlement is “made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement.”  (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 499.) 

DISCUSSION  

A.   The first amended complaint 

The first amended complaint alleges that on February 21st, 2019, due to defendants’ negligence, dogs escaped from the premises that Atlas and other defendants owned, occupied, and controlled and attacked Plaintiff while she was on a public sidewalk, injuring her. 

B.   Unopposed application for good faith settlement determination 

In City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251 (City of Grand Terrace), the Court of Appeal observed: 

“[O]f the hundreds of motions for good faith determination presented for trial court approval each year, the overwhelming majority are unopposed and granted summarily by the trial court. At the time of filing in many cases, the moving party does not know if a contest will develop. If each motion required a full recital by declaration or affidavit setting forth a complete factual response to all of the Tech-Bilt factors, literally thousands of attorney hours would be consumed and inch-thick motions would have to be read and considered by trial courts in an exercise which would waste valuable judicial and legal time and clients' resources. It must also be remembered that Tech-Bilt was decided on a contested basis. We are unaware of any reported decision which has reversed an uncontested good faith determination and we, therefore, conclude that only when the good faith nature of a settlement is disputed, it is incumbent upon the trial court to consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors. That is to say, when 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.”  (City of Grand Terrace, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d at p. 1261.) 

Atlas’s motion satisfies the City of Grand Terrace requirements. The motion explains that Atlas disputes liability and is accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case.  No opposition has been filed.  Therefore, the Court grants the application. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS the application for a determination that the settlement between Plaintiff Angela Walker and Defendant Joyce Faye Atlas was made in good faith. The Court dismisses all pending and future claims against Defendant Joyce Faye Atlas by the parties served with this motion (to the extent those claims arise from the facts giving rise to this case), including cross-complaints for equitable indemnity. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.