Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV47459, Date: 2024-12-16 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 21STCV47459 Hearing Date: December 16, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On December 29, 2021, Plaintiff Babajoni Behroz (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Brian Bahani, Richard J. Robin (“Richard Robin”), Nurit G. Robin (“Nurit Robin”), and Does 1-50 for general negligence and premises liability.
On March 25, 2022, Richard Robin and Nurit Robin filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Roes 1-100 for implied indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.
On June 16, 2023, Richard Robin and Nurit Robin amended the cross-complaint to include Cross-Defendant J & J Tree Service, Inc. (“J&J”) as Roe 1. On August 7, 2023, J&J filed an answer to the cross-complaint.
On October 28, 2024, J&J filed a motion for good faith settlement determination. The motion was set for hearing on November 22, 2024. The Court continued the hearing to December 16, 2024. No opposition has been filed.
On December 6, 2024, Richard Robin and Nurit Robin filed a stipulation stating that the settlement between Plaintiff and J&J was a good faith settlement and they would not oppose it.
Trial is currently set for January 29, 2025.
PARTY’S REQUEST
J&J asks the Court to find that its settlement with Plaintiff was made in good faith.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 provides in part:
“(a) (1) Any party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors, upon giving notice in the manner provided in subdivision (b) of Section 1005. Upon a showing of good cause, the court may shorten the time for giving the required notice to permit the determination of the issue to be made before the commencement of the trial of the action, or before the verdict or judgment if settlement is made after the trial has commenced.
“(2) In the alternative, 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 notice by a nonsettling party shall be given in the manner provided in subdivision (b) of Section 1005. However, this paragraph shall not apply to settlements in which a confidentiality agreement has been entered into regarding the case or the terms of the settlement.
“(b) 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.
“(c) A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.
“(d) The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue. . . .”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subds. (a), (b), (c), (d).)
In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499 (Tech-Bilt), our 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
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.)
Here, J&J has submitted a barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith and a brief background of the case. No opposition has been filed. Therefore, the Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Cross-Defendant J & J Tree Service, Inc.’s motion for a determination that its settlement with Plaintiff Babajoni Behroz was made in good faith. The Court dismisses all pending and future claims against Cross-Defendant J & J Tree Service, Inc. by the parties represented by counsel 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.