Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV20046, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20046    Hearing Date: February 23, 2024    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On June 20, 2022, Plaintiff Elenir Sopoulos (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants K & R Trucking Delivery Service Corp, K and R Trucking Delivery Services, Inc. (“K and R Inc.”), K/R Trucking Delivery SVC, Gilberto Antonio Palomo (“Palomo”), and Does 1-100 for motor vehicle tort. 

On September 12, 2022, Defendants K & R Trucking Delivery Service aka K & R Trucking Delivery Service Corp. and Palomo filed an answer. 

 On September 14, 2022, Cross-Complainants K & R Trucking Delivery Service Corp and Palomo filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Goran Stankovic (“Stankovic”) and Roes 1-15 for indemnity, declaratory relief, and contribution. 

On August 29, 2023, Stankovic filed notices of settlement and applications for determination of good faith settlement. 

On September 20, 2023, Defendants and Cross-Complainants K & R Trucking Delivery Service Corp. (“K & R Corp.”) and Palomo filed motions to contest Stankovic’s applications for good faith settlement determination, to be heard on December 7, 2023.  On November 17, 2023, Stankovic filed oppositions.  On November 30, 2023, K & R Corp. and Palomo filed replies.  The Court continued the hearing to February 23, 2024. 

Trial is currently scheduled for July 24, 2024. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Stankovic asks the Court to find that his settlements are in good faith. 

K & R Corp. and Palomo ask the Court to deny the applications for good faith settlement determination. 

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 Code of Civil Procedure 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 

The complaint alleges that on July 6, 2020, on the US-101 Northbound Ventura Freeway near Sepulveda Boulevard in Los Angeles, Plaintiff suffered injuries caused by Defendants’ negligent conduct in operating a motor vehicle and entrusting the vehicle to the driver, Defendants' employee and agent. 

B.   Stankovic’s apparent settlement with K and R Inc. 

Stankovic asserts that K and R Inc. has agreed to accept $100,000.00 to settle its claims against K and R Inc. contingent on the Court’s good faith settlement determination. 

Stankovic’s application for a good faith settlement determination states that in return for payment of $100,000.00 to “Elizardo Lucatero” (who the application does not identify), Stankovic will be released and dismissed without prejudice from K and R Inc.’s cross-complaint (or “Developer’s cross-complaint”).  (Application pp. 2, 3, 5, 7.)  However, K and R Inc. did not file a cross-complaint against Stankovic in this action.   

C.   Stankovic’s apparent settlement with Plaintiff 

In Stankovic’s second application for a good faith settlement determination, Stankovic states that Plaintiff has agreed to accept $100,000.00 in exchange for a release of all claims against Stankovic and K and R Inc. “in this lawsuit as alleged by [K and R Inc.] in the cross-complaint in the above-entitled action.”  (Application p. 2.)  However, as noted, K and R Inc. did not file a cross-complaint.  In addition, the application elsewhere refers to a settlement between Stankovic and K and R Inc. (not Plaintiff).  (Application pp. 1, 3, 5, 6.)  It is not clear from the application if Stankovic has entered into a settlement agreement with Plaintiff. 

D.      Ruling 

The Court cannot determine the existence or terms of Stankovic’s purported settlements based on Stankovic’s applications for a good faith settlement determination.  Therefore, the Court cannot make findings about the asserted good faith of the settlements.  The Court denies Stankovic’s applications for good faith settlement determination and denies as moot the motions to challenge the applications for a good faith settlement determination. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES Cross-Defendant Goran Stankovic’s applications for a good faith settlement determination. 

The Court DENIES as moot the motions to contest the applications for good faith settlement determination filed by Defendants and Cross-Complainants K & R Trucking Delivery Service Corp. and Gilberto Antonio Palomo. 

Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.