Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV04221, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV04221 Hearing Date: December 7, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On February 3, 2022, Plaintiff Juan Manzo (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Kenneth Josue Stepter (“Stepter”), Fair Financial Corp. (“Fair”), and Does 1-60 for negligence.
On July 13, 2022, Fair filed an answer. On July 14, 2022, the Court dismissed Fair without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On September 29, 2022, Stepter filed an answer.
On April 13, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Viola Matthews (“Matthews”) as Doe 1.
On October 11, 2023, Stepter filed a motion for determination of good faith settlement to be heard on December 7, 2023. No opposition or motion to contest has been filed.
On November 3, 2023, the Court dismissed Matthews without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
No trial date is currently scheduled.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Stepter requests that the Court find the settlement was made 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 complaint
“On or about February 21, 2020, at or near the hours of 11:11 A.M., southbound on Western Ave. at or near the vicinity of Washington Blvd. in the City of Los Angeles, State of California, Defendants, and each of them, so carelessly, negligently, and unlawfully owned, operated, entrusted, controlled, managed, maintained the 2015 Mercedes Benz C300 vehicle in a reckless, careless, and harmful manner so as to cause it to strike the rear corner of Plaintiff’s vehicle; thereby proximately causing personal injuries and damages to Plaintiff hereinafter described.” (Complaint ¶ 10.)
B. Plaintiff’s total recovery and settlor’s proportionate liability
Plaintiff and Stepter have agreed to settle the case for $50,000.00. Plaintiff has asserted $47,559.50 in special damages, consisting of $45,959.50 in medical damages, $600.00 in loss of use and $1,000.00 as a deductible. Plaintiff confirmed that he has not suffered from lost wages or lost earning capacity.
The proposed settlement exceeds the special damages of which the parties were aware when they agreed to the settlement. This factor weighs in favor of a finding of good faith.
C. Allocation of settlement
Plaintiff will receive the entire settlement. This factor weighs in favor of a finding of good faith.
D. Financial considerations
Stepter has agreed to pay $50,000.00 in settlement, which is half of his auto policy limit. Stepter does not have any other applicable insurance policies. Stepter did not provide information on his assets. This factor is neutral.
E. Collusion or fraud
The Court has seen no evidence of fraud or collusion. This factor weighs in favor of a finding of good faith.
F. Weighing the Tech-Bilt factors
Based on the Tech-Bilt factors discussed above, and in the absence of any motion to contest the good faith of the settlement, the Court finds the proposed settlement was made in good faith. The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion for a determination that the settlement between Plaintiff Juan Manzo and Defendant Kenneth Josue Stepter was made in good faith. The Court dismisses all pending and future claims against Defendant Kenneth Josue Stepter 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.