Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV11728, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11728    Hearing Date: January 31, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On May 24, 2023, Plaintiff Krystelle Lumantas (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Kostiantyn Stoliar (“Stoliar”), Berlin Verali Marroquin (“Marroquin”), and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort. 

On July 17, 2023, Marroquin filed an answer. On July 25, 2023, Marroquin filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Plaintiff, Stoliar, and Moes 1-50 for negligence. On October 12, 2023, Stoliar filed an answer to Marroquin’s cross-complaint. On October 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed an answer to Marroquin’s cross-complaint. 

On July 17, 2023, Stoliar filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Marroquin and Roes 1-10 for indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief. On August 30, 2023, Marroquin filed an answer to Stoliar’s cross-complaint. 

On October 12, 2023, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

On January 3, 2024, Marroquin filed a motion for determination of good faith settlement to be heard on January 31, 2024.  No opposition has been filed. 

Trial is currently scheduled for November 20, 2024. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Marroquin 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 

The complaint alleges that on January 9, 2023, at the intersection of North Vermont Street and Clinton Street in Los Angeles, California, Stoliar and Marroquin negligently operated, owned, or entrusted a motor vehicle, causing Plaintiff to suffer injuries and damage. 

B.   Recovery and proportionate liability 

Plaintiff and Marroquin have agreed to settle the case for $15,000.00. Plaintiff has asserted $14,951.39 in special damages, including $11,620.00 in medical damages and $3,331.39 in past lost income. Plaintiff has stated she is uncertain about future income loss. 

The proposed settlement exceeds the known special damages of $14,951.39. Stoliar has agreed to settle with Plaintiff for the same amount. This appears to be a fair result. 

C.   Allocation of settlement 

The total settlement will be paid to Plaintiff. 

D.   Financial considerations 

$15,000.00 is Marroquin’s entire auto policy limit.  Marroquin did not provide information about other assets. 

E.   Collusion or fraud 

The Court has seen no evidence of collusion or fraud. 

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 Krystelle Lumantas and Defendant Berlin Verali Marroquin was made in good faith. The Court dismisses all pending and future claims against Defendant Berlin Verali Marroquin 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.