Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV33264, Date: 2023-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV33264    Hearing Date: September 27, 2023    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving, opposition and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On September 8, 2021, Plaintiff Maurice Adams (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Sabine Obaji, James Antonucci (“Antonucci”), and Does 1-40 for negligence. 

On October 15, 2021, Sadine Obaji (erroneously sued as Sabine Obaji) filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Antonucci and Does 1-50 for complete indemnity, partial indemnity and declaratory relief. On November 12, 2021, Antonucci filed an answer. 

On November 18, 2021, Antonucci filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Sabine Obaji and Moes 1-25 for indemnification, apportionment of fault and declaratory relief. On December 9, 2021, Sabine Obagi (erroneously sued as Sabine Obaji) (“Obagi”) filed an answer. 

On July 7, 2023, Obagi filed an application for determination of good faith settlement. 

On July 31, 2023, Antonucci filed a motion to contest good faith settlement to be heard on September 27, 2023. On August 22, 2023, Obagi filed an opposition. On September 14, 2023, Antonucci filed a reply. 

Trial is currently set for October 4, 2023. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Obagi requests that the Court find the settlement with Plaintiff is in good faith. 

Antonucci requests that the Court deny Obagi's application for good faith settlement determination. 

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  

Obagi and Plaintiff have agreed to settle for $40,000. 

A.   Plaintiff’s total recovery and settlor’s proportionate liability 

According to Obagi, in September 2019, Plaintiff and Antonucci were involved in a vehicle accident.  Plaintiff alleged that he suffered neck and back injuries in this accident and received treatment in the form of an emergency room visit, chiropractic care and diagnostic testing.  (Motion p. 4.) 

Obagi states that in April 2020, Plaintiff was involved in another vehicle accident.  Plaintiff alleged that this accident aggravated the injuries he suffered in the 2019 accident and led to additional treatment in the form of orthopedic evaluations which included recommendations and scheduling for cervical and epidural injections which he received in October and November of 2020.  This case settled without litigation.  (Motion p. 5.) 

On September 25, 2020, Plaintiff and Obagi were involved in a vehicle accident on Olympic Boulevard in Los Angeles County.  Plaintiff alleged he was driving eastbound in the number three lane when Obagi merged into Plaintiff’s lane of travel and the two vehicles collided.  Plaintiff alleged that this accident aggravated his injuries from the September 2019 accident and he received additional orthopedic evaluation and chiropractic treatment.  (Motion p. 5; Gales Dec. ¶ 3.) 

After global settlement discussions between counsel, counsel for Antonucci, and Plaintiff failed, Obagi and Plaintiff reached a settlement. (Gales Dec. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff has signed a full release of all claims against Obagi and has agreed to file a dismissal of the complaint against Obagi with prejudice in exchange for $40,000 if the Court finds the settlement to be in good faith. (Gales Dec. ¶¶ 5-3 [sic].) 

Obagi asserts that Plaintiff’s total medical specials for all three accidents are $51,077.60.  (Motion p. 5.)  However, Obagi does not provide evidence supporting her assertion about the amount of medical specials and does not state whether Plaintiff seeks damages for future medical expenses or loss of income. 

Obagi does not discuss or provide evidence showing the potential liability of Antonucci or the driver in the April 2020 accident, preventing the Court from considering “the settlor’s proportionate liability” as required by Tech-Bilt. 

UnderTech-Bilt, the Court needs information about Plaintiff’s total recovery and Obagi’s proportionate liability to decide if a settlement is "in the ballpark."  Obagi has not provided sufficient information for the Court to evaluate these Tech-Bilt factors. 

B.   Allocation of Settlement 

All of the settlement funds will be delivered to Plaintiff. 

C.   Financial considerations 

Obagi has provided no information about her financial situation or available insurance. 

D.   Collusion or fraud 

“The settlement was reached without any collusion between the parties thereto and without any intent to tortuously injure the interests of any other persons, entities or parties to this action after participating in settlement negotiations. The settlement was entered into for the sole reason of avoiding additional, costly and lengthy litigation in order that the settling parties could buy their peace in this matter.” (Gales Dec. ¶ 4 [sic].) 

E.   Weighing the Tech-Bilt factors 

Antonucci has carried his burden of proving that Obagi's application for determination of good faith settlement contains insufficient evidence to establish that the settlement is “in the ballpark” for the reasons stated above. The Court denies the application for good faith settlement and grants the motion to contest good faith settlement. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES Defendant, Cross-Complainant, and Cross-Defendant Sabine Obagi’s application for good faith settlement determination. 

The Court GRANTS Defendant, Cross-Defendant, and Cross-Complainant James Antonucci’s motion to contest good faith settlement. 

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.