Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV31474, Date: 2023-07-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV31474 Hearing Date: July 10, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On August 24, 2021, Plaintiff Mary Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Chelsea Marie Reed Harmel (“Harmel”) and Michael Antosy (“Antosy”) for motor vehicle and general negligence.
On February 2, 2022, Defendants/Cross-Complainants filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant Fernando Torres (“Cross-Defendant Torres”) for indemnification, apportionment and declaratory relief. Cross-Defendant Torres filed an answer on December 6, 2022.
On December 28, 2022, the Court dismissed Antosy from the complaint, without prejudice, at Plaintiff’s request.
On February 17, 2023, Cross-Defendant Torres moved for a good faith settlement determination. Defendant/Cross-Complainant Harmel opposed the motion.
On April 13, 2023, the Court (Hon. Daniel M. Crowley) denied the motion for good faith settlement determination, stating:
“Plaintiff and Torres agreed to settle for $20,000.00. Torres states that the amount of the settlement meets and/or exceeds what would have been expected to be determined in terms of liability but provided no argument or evidence in support of this claim. Torres also failed to provide information as to the requested damages by Plaintiff, and thus the Court cannot determine the amount made in proportion to the amount requested.
“According to Harmel’s opposition, Plaintiff testified that the initial impact caused by Torres was substantially more significant than that caused by Harmel’s. Plaintiff is also alleging over $300,000.00 in medical damages. Given that the only information provided to the Court indicates that Torres may have been more, if not equally, at fault for Plaintiff’s injuries, this weighs against finding the settlement was made in good faith.”
* * *
“Torres provided no information as to who will receive the settlement. The Court assumes all will be allocated to Plaintiff, but no information has been provided to verify this assumption in the moving papers.”
* * *
“Torres paid out $20,000.00 in settlement, which is his auto-policy limit. Torres provided no information as to his financial condition for the Court to evaluate.”
* * *
“There is no indication of fraud or collusion. This was an arms-length settlement conducted between counsel and the claims adjustor.”
On April 27, 2023, Cross-Defendant Torres filed a second Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement to be heard on July 10, 2023. On June 26, 2023, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Harmel filed an opposition. On June 30, 2023, Cross-Defendant Torres filed a reply.
The trial is currently set for October 20, 2023.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Cross-Defendant Torres requests that the Court find the settlement is in good faith.
Defendant/Cross-Complainant Harmel requests that the Court find the settlement is not 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
This action arises out of a multi-vehicle collision. Cross-Defendant Torres’s vehicle allegedly rear-ended Plaintiff’s vehicle. Defendant/Cross-Complainant Harmel’s vehicle allegedly rear-ended Cross-Defendant Torres’s vehicle, which was then pushed further into Plaintiff’s vehicle.
Cross-Defendant Torres asks the Court to find his agreement with Plaintiff to settle the case by paying Plaintiff $20,000 from Torres’s automobile policy (the policy limits) is in good faith. Defendant/Cross-Complainant Harmel asks the Court to find the settlement is not in good faith.
A. Plaintiff’s total recovery and settlor’s proportionate liability
On December 22, 2020 (before Plaintiff filed her complaint), Plaintiff made a policy limits settlement demand, claiming medical damages of $17,984.00 and estimating approximately $124,000 in future medical expenses. The following month, Cross-Defendant Torres agreed to Plaintiff’s demand in exchange for a dismissal, with prejudice, of Plaintiff’s claims against him.
Plaintiff's medical records indicate she has incurred at least $330,006 in medical bills as of March 2022, allegedly as the result of the accident. Plaintiff allegedly continues to suffer from neck, back and shoulder pain, anxiety, head pain, vertigo, hearing loss and dizziness due to the accident. Since her initial responses to discovery, Plaintiff allegedly has continued to receive treatment for her accident-related injuries. Plaintiff alleges that she will require future treatment.
Defendant/Cross-Complainant Harmel contends that Cross-Defendant Torres is the “primary tortfeasor” and his negligence was the primary cause of the accident. Harmel provides little evidence to support this argument. Plaintiff’s deposition testimony that the impact from Cross-Defendant Torres’s vehicle felt more significant than the impact from Defendant/Cross Complainant Harmel’s vehicle has minimal probative value because Harmel has not established that she has expertise in assessing the force of vehicle impacts or their effects on drivers.
B. Allocation of Settlement
All of the $20,000 settlement will be paid to Plaintiff.
C. Financial considerations
In a declaration submitted with the motion for a good faith settlement determination, Cross-Defendant Torres states that his insurance policy limit is $20,000.00. He has no other insurance policy. He does not have the financial ability to pay more than his policy limit. He is a full-time student and currently receives state disability benefits of $710 per week ($2,840/month). The disability benefits are his only source of income. He lives with his mother and pays $1,000 for rent, utilities and food, $100 for automobile insurance, and $1,300 in childcare and expenses for his eight children. He has a checking account that has a balance ranging from $0 to $300 every couple of weeks. He does not have a savings account or any stocks or bonds. He does not own any real property. He has no assets with which to pay a judgment if one was rendered against him.
D. Collusion or fraud
There is no evidence of fraud or collusion.
E. Weighing the Tech-Bilt factors
The Court has weighed the Tech-Bilt factors. The Court finds that the settlement is “in the ballpark” in light of the information known at the time of the settlement, Cross-Defendant Torres’s financial condition, and the lack of evidence that Torres’s potential liability is disproportionate to the settlement amount. The Court concludes that Defendant/Cross-Complainant Harmel has not carried her burden of proving that the settlement is not in good faith for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6. Therefore, the Court grants Cross-Defendant Torres’s motion for a good faith settlement determination.
CONCLUSION
The application for good faith settlement determination of Cross-Defendant Fernando Torres is GRANTED. The Court dismisses all pending and future claims against Torres 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.
Cross-Defendant Torres is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Cross-Defendant Torres is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.