Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STLC08057, Date: 2025-06-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STLC08057 Hearing Date: June 9, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Prior proceedings
On December 2, 2022, Plaintiff Leonel Damian Galvez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Skyler Miles, Benedic Obi, Roadie, and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. The case was classified as a limited civil case.
On March 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Defendants Skyler Miles, Benedict Obi, Roadie, Inc., and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort. The first amended complaint reclassified the case as an unlimited civil case.
On May 11, 2023, Defendant Roadie, Inc. (“Roadie”) filed an answer to the first amended complaint and filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Roes 1-50 for indemnity, contribution and apportionment, and declaratory relief. On September 19, 2023, Roadie amended the cross-complaint to include Cross-Defendant Getaround, Inc. (“Getaround”) as Roe 1. On October 10, 2023, Getaround filed an answer to the cross-complaint.
On September 25, 2023, Defendant Benedict Obi (“Obi”) filed an answer to the first amended complaint.
On October 30, 2023, Plaintiff amended the first amended complaint to include Getaround as Doe 31. On November 21, 2023, Getaround filed an answer to the first amended complaint.
On March 12, 2024, Defendant Skyler Miles (“Miles”) filed an answer to the first amended complaint.
On April 23, 2024, Miles’ counsel filed a Notice of Stay of Proceedings stating that Miles had filed a petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. On April 24, 2024, the Court stayed the action against Miles.
On October 22, 2024, Miles filed a status report stating that the Bankruptcy Court entered an Order of Discharge on June 18, 2024. According to the Order, the bankruptcy case remained open.
On December 17, 2024, the Court dismissed Getaround and Obi from the first amended complaint with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On May 23, 2025, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated request to lift the stay of the action against Miles “for purposes consistent with the Bankruptcy Court Order of Discharge dated June 18, 2024, including pursuit of potentially applicable insurance proceeds.” Based on the parties’ stipulation, the Court ordered that the case could proceed against Miles “as consistent with the Bankruptcy Court Order of Discharge dated June 18, 2024.”
Trial is scheduled for September 19, 2025.
B. This motion
On February 4, 2025, Getaround and Obi filed a motion for a good faith settlement determination. The motion was set for hearing on April 9, 2025. On March 25, 2025, Roadie filed an opposition. On April 2, 2025, Getaround and Obi filed a reply. The Court continued the hearing to June 9, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Getaround and Obi ask the Court to find that the settlement between Getaround and Plaintiff for $45,000.00 was made in good faith.
Roadie asks the Court to deny the motion.
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).)
“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.” (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2024) ¶ 12:841, p. 12(ll)-98 (Cal. Practice Guide).) “A nonsettling party may contest the ‘good faith’ of the settlement by serving and filing a motion within 25 days after [a notice of settlement, application for good faith settlement determination, and proposed order] were mailed (20 days, if the documents were personally served).” (Id., ¶ 12:849, p. 12(ll)-99.)
In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499 (Tech-Bilt), the 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.”
“At the hearing on the motion, the party claiming the settlement was not in good faith has the burden of proof on this issue.” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 12:875, p. 12(ll)-105.) That is, “the nonsettling tortfeasor has the burden of demonstrating that the settlement is ‘so far “out of the ballpark” in relation to these [Tech-Bilt] factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute.” (Ibid., quoting Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 499-500.)
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. Standing
As noted, on December 17, 2024, the Court dismissed Getaround and Obi from the first amended complaint with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. Therefore, Getaround and Obi are no longer defendants in this case. Getaround, however, is a cross-defendant in Roadie’s cross-complaint. Therefore, Getaround, in its capacity as a cross-defendant, has standing to bring this motion for good faith settlement determination. (See L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2024) ¶ 4:865, p. 4-173 [“Any party to the action . . . may move for a determination of whether the settlement was made in ‘good faith’ ” (quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(1)); id., ¶ 4:866, p. 173 [“The moving party need not be a defendant in the main action. He or she may be brought into the action by cross-complaint”].)
B. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint
Plaintiff’s first amended complaint includes the following allegations:
On October 6, 2022, at Interstate 405 North, at or about 90 feet south of 213th Street in Carson, CA 90745, Miles was operating a motor vehicle. Roadie employed Miles. Obi owned the vehicle and entrusted it to Miles, who operated it with Obi’s permission. Defendants acted negligently and their negligence caused Plaintiff’s injuries.
C. Roadie’s cross-complaint
Roadie’s cross-complaint includes the following allegations:
“Cross-Complainant denies any liability on its part, but if the allegations of Plaintiff are true in any respect and Cross-Complainant is found to have been legally responsible, any legally responsible conduct on the part of Cross-Complainant was of a secondary and passive nature, while the legally responsible conduct of the Cross-Defendants herein was primary and active. Cross-Complainant seeks to be indemnified and held harmless from any liability, and for any and all expenses of litigation, sums paid by way of settlement and/or judgment, and all other costs incidental to the defense, investigation and handling of this litigation.” (Cross-complaint ¶ 7.)
D. Proportionate liability
Getaround asserts that it paid Plaintiff $45,000.00 to settle Plaintiff’s allegation that Getaround, a car-sharing platform, negligently entrusted the vehicle to Miles. Getaround states that $45,000.00 is “the amount the applicable insurance coverage limits would have been for Mr. Miles if Getaround’s coverage applied.” (Motion p. 4.) According to Getaround, its insurance coverage did not apply to this accident because Miles, despite renting the vehicle from Getaround, was driving the vehicle for a commercial purpose as Roadie’s employee. Therefore, Getaround argues, only Roadie’s insurance coverage applied.
In response, Roadie contends that Getaround’s insurance coverage was primary to Roadie’s coverage under Insurance Code section 11580.24, subdivision (c)(1), which provides in part:
“A personal vehicle sharing program shall, for each vehicle that it facilitates the use of, do all of the following: . . . (1) Provide the registered owner of the vehicle with a Department of Motor Vehicles Form REG 5085 or other suitable proof of compliance with the insurance requirements of this section and the requirements of the California Financial Responsibility Law in Section 1656.2 of the Vehicle Code, a copy of which shall be maintained in the vehicle by the vehicle’s registered owner during any time when the vehicle is operated by any person other than the vehicle’s owner pursuant to a personal vehicle sharing program.”
(Ins. Code, § 11580.24, subd. (c)(1).)
According to Roadie, the settlement is not in good faith because Getaround’s insurance company has denied that its policy provided primary coverage, leaving Roadie’s insurer to pay defense costs and potentially pay any judgment against Roadie. Getaround, in reply, argues that this dispute about which coverage is primary has no bearing on the good faith of its settlement with Plaintiff because, even if Getaround’s coverage was primary, Getaround paid Plaintiff $45,000.00, the same amount as the policy limit ($45,000.00) of Getaround’s coverage. Roadie does not dispute that the policy limits of Getaround’s coverage, if it applied, was $45,000.00. Therefore, Roadie’s argument does not prevent the Court from finding that the settlement with Plaintiff was in good faith. The dispute between Getaround and Roadie about which party’s insurance coverage should pay Miles’s defense costs and any judgment against Miles does not affect the Court’s decision whether to grant the motion for a good faith settlement determination and the Court’s ruling does not address this separate dispute.
Getaround also argues that it could not be liable to Plaintiff because its duty was limited to verifying that Miles had a valid drivers license and was not intoxicated when he rented the vehicle. Getaround only rented the vehicle to Miles and did not employ Miles or operate the vehicle.
Obi contends that its maximum potential liability as owner of the vehicle is under $15,000.00 by Vehicle Code sections 17150 and 17151. According to Obi, however, it has no liability because the vehicle was being operated during its use on Getaround’s drive-sharing platform, making Getaround the vehicle’s “owner” under Insurance Code section 11580.24, subdivision (d).
E. Plaintiff’s damages
Getaround estimates that “Plaintiff’s total recovery would appear to be six figures or less” based on (1) Plaintiff’s listing of approximately $35,000 in past medical specials in response to Form Interrogatory 6.4, (2) Plaintiff’s current claimed medical specials of approximately $63,000, (3) Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory 6.7 indicating that Plaintiff is alleging potential future lumbar injections at a claimed cost of $15,000 per injection, and (4) the lack of any claim for lost wages or lost earnings.
In response, Roadie contends that Getaround “grossly understates Plaintiff’s alleged damages.” According to Roadie, “Plaintiff alleges that he has already incurred in excess of $108,000 in medical costs and may require over $200,000 in additional treatment.” (Opposition p. 2.) Roadie also asks the Court to postpone its ruling on the motion for good faith settlement determination until Plaintiff has completed medical treatment and produced medical records.
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.) Roadie admits that it “only recently learned of these [additional] alleged expenses” and that “Plaintiff has not formally updated his discovery responses to include these expenses or even provided medical records of recently received treatment.” (Opposition p. 8; see Grad dec. ¶¶ 5-6.) Roadie has not refuted Getaround’s showing that, when Getaround and Obi reached their settlement with Plaintiff, Plaintiff claimed $63,000.00 in medical specials.
F. Settlors’ financial condition
Getaround and Obi contend that this factor is irrelevant because “the settlement was not based upon any discount for [their] financial condition.” (Motion p. 9.) In addition, while Getaround contends that its insurance policy does not cover this incident, it asserts that it settled with Plaintiff for the policy limit that would have been in effect if Getaround’s coverage applied. (Motion p. 9.)
G. Collusion and fraud
Roadie has presented no evidence of collusion or fraud.
H. Weighing the Tech-Bilt factors
The Court has weighed the Tech-Bilt factors and finds that Roadie has not carried its burden of showing the settlement is not in good faith.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion for a good faith settlement determination filed by Cross-Defendant Getaround, Inc. and Benedict Obi. The Court finds that the settlement between Cross-Defendant Getaround, Inc. and Benedict Obi, on the one hand, and Plaintiff Leonel Damian Galvez, on the other hand, was made in good faith. The Court dismisses all pending and future claims against Cross-Defendant Getaround, Inc. and Benedict Obi 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.
Cross-Defendant Getaround, Inc. and Benedict Obi are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Cross-Defendant Getaround, Inc. and Benedict Obi are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.