Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV12946, Date: 2024-02-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV12946 Hearing Date: February 21, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On April 18, 2022, Plaintiff Ben Karp (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Westlake Plaza Center East-II, LLC (“Westlake”) and Does 1-50 for general negligence and premises liability.
On June 8, 2022, Westlake filed an answer.
On June 17, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant All Points Lock and Security, Inc. (“All Points”) as Doe 1. On December 29, 2022, All Points filed an answer.
On December 6, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Cushman & Wakefield U.S., Inc. as Doe 2.
On January 25, 2024, All Points filed a motion for good faith settlement determination to be heard on February 21, 2024.
On January 30, 2024, Defendant Cushman & Wakefield of California, Inc., erroneously sued as Cushman & Wakefield U.S. Inc. (“Cushman & Wakefield”), filed an answer to the complaint.
Trial is currently set for May 16, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUEST
All Points asks the Court to find that its settlement with Plaintiff is in good faith.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (a), provides:
“(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.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a).)
“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
“Two procedures are available to obtain a court determination of the ‘good faith’ issue: either an application, which may be followed by a motion contesting the application [citation]; or a regular motion filed by the party seeking approval [citation].” (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 12:841, p. 12(ll)-98 (Cal. Practice Guide).) A motion is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (a)(1). (See id., ¶ 12:855, p. 12(ll)-100.) An application is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (a)(2). (See id., ¶ 12:842, p. 12(ll)-98.)
These statutes “require notice to be served on other parties to the action—i.e., the nonsettling defendants.” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 12:860, p. 12(ll)-102.)
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, All Points has filed a motion for a good faith settlement determination that satisfies the requirements of City of Grand Terrace. However, the proof of service attached to All Points's motion does not reflect service on Cushman & Wakefield, even though the motion lists Cushman & Wakefield as a non-settling defendant.
Accordingly, the Court continues the hearing on All Points’s motion for good faith settlement determination and orders All Points to serve the moving papers on Cushman & Wakefield and file proof of service with the Court before the continued hearing.
CONCLUSION
The Court CONTINUES the hearing on Defendant All Points Lock and Security, Inc.’s motion for good faith settlement determination to March 28, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse. The Court orders Defendant All Points Lock and Security, Inc. to serve the moving papers on Defendant Cushman & Wakefield of California, Inc. at least 16 days before the continued hearing and to file proof of service with the Court.
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.