Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23BBCV00900, Date: 2023-12-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23BBCV00900 Hearing Date: December 18, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Case number 22STCV06837
On February 24, 2022, Plaintiff Adam Murad Herbert Bonavida (“Bonavida”) filed this action against Defendants Christian Joseph Smallwood (“Smallwood”), Tony Guldalian (“Guldalian”), Kursten Claire Rush (“Rush”), Samuel Alan Aaron (“Aaron”), and Does 1-100 for motor vehicle negligence, intentional infliction for emotional distress, negligence and negligent entrustment. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendant Anthony Ceballos (“Ceballos”) as Doe 1.
On April 18, 2022, Rush filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Smallwood, Aaron, and Roes 1-50 for indemnity, contribution and declaratory relief. On October 21, 2022, Aaron filed an answer. On May 18, 2022, Guldalian filed an answer. On May 19, 2022, Smallwood filed an answer.
On September 21, 2022, Ceballos filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Smallwood, Aaron, and Roes 1-50 for indemnity, apportionment, contribution and declaratory relief. On November 1, 2022, Smallwood filed an answer.
On September 27, 2022, Bonavida filed a first amended complaint. On November 1, 2022, Smallwood and Rush filed answers. On November 30, 2022, Guidalian filed an answer.
On November 9, 2022, Smallwood filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Aaron and Foes 1-100 for equitable indemnity, contribution and declaratory relief.
On January 6, 2023, Bonavida filed a second amended complaint, adding another cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. On January 30, 2023, Ceballos filed an answer. On February 3, 2023, Rush filed an answer. On February 6, 2023, Guldalian filed an answer. On February 7, 2023, Smallwood filed an answer.
On May 10, 2023, Bonavida filed a third amended complaint. On June 6, 2023, Guldalian, Ceballos and Rush filed answers.
On September 8, 2023, the Court overruled Smallwood’s demurrer and denied his motion to strike.
On September 12, 2023, the Court sustained Aaron’s demurrer to Bonavida’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress with leave to amend and denied Aaron’s motion to strike Bonavida’s punitive damage claim.
On September 27, 2023, Ceballos filed a motion for a determination that his settlement with Bonavida was in good faith.
On October 25, 2023, Ceballos filed a “Stipulation Regarding Service of Application for Good Faith Settlement” which contained signatures from counsel for Bonavida, Smallwood, Aaron, Guldalian, and Rush.
B. Case number 23BBCV00900 (this case)
On April 24, 2023, Rush filed this action against Ceballos, Aaron, and Does 1-50 for negligence.
On June 5, 2023, Aaron filed an answer.
On June 8, 2023, Ceballos filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Aaron, Smallwood, and Roes 1-10 for indemnity, apportionment and contribution, and declaratory relief. On July 5, 2023, Aaron filed an answer. On August 14, 2023, Smallwood filed an answer.
On September 26, 2023 (and again on October 31, 2023), Ceballos filed an application for an order determining that his settlement with Rush was in good faith.
On October 25, 2023, Ceballos filed a “Stipulation Regarding Service of Application for Good Faith Settlement” which contained signatures from counsel for Rush, Smallwood, and Aaron acknowledging they had received electronic service of Ceballos’s application and had no objection to that method of service.
The proofs of service attached to the application for a good faith settlement determination listed two additional people purportedly served electronically whose counsel did not sign the stipulation: Bonavida and Guldalian.
C. The Court relates the cases
On July 12, 2023, the Court found that case numbers 22STCV06837 and 23BBCV00900 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). Case number 22STCV06837 became the lead case. For good cause shown, the cases were assigned to Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes. All hearings in the non-lead case, 23BBCV00900, were rescheduled in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse, on the same dates, at the same times, as previously scheduled.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Ceballos requests that the Court find that his settlement with Rush in case number 23BBCV00900 is 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. Service of the application for good faith settlement determination in case number 23BBCV00900
As noted above, counsel for Rush, Smallwood, and Aaron signed the stipulation stating that these parties received electronic service of Ceballos’s application good faith settlement determination in case number 23BBCV00900 and had no objection to that method of service.
Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (a)(2), requires service of an application for good faith settlement by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by personal service, on “all parties.” Bonavida and Guldalian, whose counsel did not sign the stipulation, are not parties to case number 23BBCV00900. Therefore, Ceballos was not required to serve the application for good faith settlement determination on them.
B. No party has contested the application for a good faith settlement determination
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (a)(2), “[i]f none of the nonsettling parties files a motion within 25 days of the mailing of the notice, application, and proposed order, or within 20 days of personal service, the court may approve the settlement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(2).)
On October 25, 2023, Ceballos filed the stipulation in which Rush, Smallwood, and Aaron agreed that they had received electronic service of the application for good faith settlement determination and had no objection to that method of service. It has been more than 25 days since October 25, 2023. Therefore, the Court may approve the settlement.
C. Tech-Bilt factors
Rush has agreed to settle her claims against Ceballos for a payment of $10,001. The Court has reviewed the application and finds that this amount is “in the ballpark” of Ceballos’s potential liability, the entire amount will be paid to Rush, there is no evidence of fraud or collusion, and the payment is appropriate in light of Ceballos’s financial condition and insurance coverage.
Based on the Tech-Bilt factors 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 application.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the application for a determination that the settlement between Plaintiff Kursten Claire Rush and Defendant Anthony Israel Ceballos in case number 23BBCV00900 was made in good faith. The Court dismisses all pending and future claims against Defendant Anthony Israel Ceballos by the parties served with this application (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.