Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 21STCV17487, Date: 2024-12-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV17487 Hearing Date: December 9, 2024 Dept: 6
CASE NAME: Linda Marie Aversa, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, LTD, et al.
2. Defendants Ford Motor Company and Will Tiesiera Ford, Inc.’s Motion for Good Faith Settlement Determination
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court GRANTS the motion to seal settlement agreement. The Court will sign the proposed order.
The Court GRANTS the motion for good faith settlement determination. The Court will sign the proposed order.
Moving Parties are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.
BACKGROUND
This is a wrongful death case arising out of an auto accident on January 9, 2020. On May 10, 2021, plaintiffs Linda Marie Aversa, individually and as the successor-in-interest to the Estate of Jeremy Richard Olivas (Aversa) and Ricardo Olivas (Olivas) filed this action (Case Number 21STCV17487) against defendants Ford Motor Company, LTD (Ford), Will Tiesiera Ford, Inc. (Tiesiera), Kaj Wendall Faaborg (Faaborg), and Does 1 through 50, alleging causes of action for strict product liability, negligent product liability, and motor vehicle negligence.
On May 13, 2021, plaintiff Marshall Tanaka filed a complaint in Case Number 21STCV18090 against defendants Ford Motor Company, LTD, Will Tiesiera Ford, Inc., Kaj Wendall Faaborg, and Does 1 through 50, alleging causes of action for strict product liability, negligent product liability, and motor vehicle negligence.
On December 8, 2021, the Court consolidated Case Numbers 21STCV17487 and 21STCV18090, with Case Number 21STCV17487 designated as the lead case.
On December 29, 2021, Aversa filed a request for dismissal of her claims under Case Number 21STCV17487 without prejudice. The dismissal was entered on January 11, 2022.
On January 5, 2022, Aversa filed a separate complaint under Case Number 22STCV00500 against Ford Motor Company, LTD, Will Tiesiera Ford, Inc., Kaj Wendall Faaborg, and Does 1 through 50, alleging causes of action for strict product liability, negligent product liability, motor vehicle negligence, and successor-in-interest damages including decedent Jeremy Olivas’ non-economic damages and for exemplary damages.
On August 2, 2022, Court consolidated Case Numbers 21STCV17487, 21STCV18090, and 22STCV00500, with Case Number 21STCV17487 designated as the lead case.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND – Motion to Seal Settlement Agreement
On November 1, 2024, Ford and Tiesiera (collectively, Moving Parties) moved to seal the settlement agreement between Moving Parties and Aversa, and also moved for a good faith settlement determination. The motion to seal the settlement agreement is unopposed.
LEGAL STANDARD – Motion to Seal Settlement Agreement
“A record must not be filed under seal without a court order. The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subd. (a).)
“A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551, subd. (b)(1).)
“The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (d).)
“An order sealing the record must: (A) Specifically state the facts that support the findings; and (B) Direct the sealing of only those documents and pages, or, if reasonably practicable, portions of those documents and pages, that contain the material that needs to be placed under seal. All other portions of each document or page must be included in the public file.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (e)(1).)
DISCUSSION – Motion to Seal Settlement Agreement
Moving Parties seek to seal the confidential settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) between Aversa on the one hand and Moving Parties on the other on the grounds that it would protect Aversa’s financial interests from those who might access the Court’s public records regarding this case. Moving Parties contend Aversa has a constitutionally protected right to privacy, that her privacy right in her personal financial information is an overriding interest that justifies sealing the settlement amount, that there is a substantial probability that Aversa’s privacy interests will be prejudiced if records referencing the settlement amount are not sealed, and that the public has a weak interest in knowing the settlement amount. Moving Parties contend they only seek to restrict the disclosure of information to the public at large, which lacks a sufficient interest in these proceedings to overriding the settling parties’ privacy interests in protecting this confidential information. Moving Parties contend the Settlement Agreement contains information about Aversa’s financial status based on the settlement amount. Moving Parties also contend they have a sufficient privacy interest in keeping this information confidential, and that Aversa believes it would be in her best interest to keep it confidential.
The Court finds Moving Parties’ motion to seal well taken. Moving Parties’ and Aversa’s contractual agreement to maintain the confidentiality of the settlement amount constitutes an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record, and that this overriding interest supports sealing the records. (Adams Decl., Ex. A, ¶ 13.0; Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Ct. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283.) The Court also finds a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed, given the sensitive nature of settlement amounts. (See ibid.; Adams Decl., Ex. A, p. 26 of pdf.) The Court further finds that the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored, as it only excludes the settlement amount from the public, and the Court does not see any less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest given Moving Parties’ concurrently filed motion for good faith settlement determination. (Adams Decl., Ex. A, p. 26 of pdf; Motion for Good Faith Settlement Determination (11/1/24).)
Finally, the Court notes no opposition to this motion, which the Court construes as a tacit admission that Moving Parties’ arguments are meritorious. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410; C. Opposing the Motion—and Rebutting the Opposition, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 9(I)-C, ¶ 9:105.10; see also Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215 [“Contentions are waived when a party fails to support them with reasoned argument and citations to authority. [Citation]”].)
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motion to seal the settlement agreement between Aversa and the Moving Parties.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND – Motion for Good Faith Settlement Determination
On November 1, 2024, Moving Parties moved for a good faith settlement determination. On November 21, 2024, Aversa joined the motion for a good faith settlement determination. On November 22, 2024, Faaborg opposed the motion for a good faith settlement determination. On December 2, 2024, Moving Parties replied to the opposition to the motion for a good faith settlement determination.
LEGAL STANDARD – Motion for Good Faith Settlement Determination
“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a).)
The factors for determining a good faith settlement include a rough approximation of the plaintiffs’ total recovery and the settling defendant’s proportionate liability, the settlement amount, the recognition that a settling defendant should pay less in settlement than if found liable after a trial, the allocation of the settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, the settling defendant’s financial condition and insurance policy limits, if any, and evidence of any collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct between the settling defendant and the plaintiffs demonstrating an intent to make the nonsettling parties pay more than their fair share. (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assocs. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499 (Tech-Bilt).) The settling defendant’s potential liability for indemnity to joint tortfeasors is also a factor. (Far W. Fin. Corp. v. D & S Co. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 796, 816.)
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS – Motion for Good Faith Settlement Determination
The Court SUSTAINS all of Moving Parties’ evidentiary objections to the Declaration of John Culver for lack of foundation.
DISCUSSION – Motion for Good Faith Settlement Determination
Summary of Arguments
Ford and Tiesiera (collectively, Moving Parties) seek an order for judicial good faith determination under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 for a settlement agreement between Plaintiff Aversa on the one hand and Moving Parties on the other (the “Settlement Agreement”), and an order barring all current and future claims against Moving Parties. Moving Parties contend the Settlement Agreement was made in good faith and complies with all the Tech-Bilt factors. More specifically, they contend that the settlement amount is a rough approximation of Aversa’s potential recovery against Moving Parties, as their liability is speculative at best. Moving Parties contend the evidence uncovered in this matter shows the Ford Mustang and its component parts were reasonably safe, and that Faaborg’s intoxication and criminal operation of his vehicle singularly caused this accident.
Moving Parties contend the confidential amount they will pay is appropriate and Faaborg would be able to offset the amount Moving Parties pay against any judgment Aversa obtains against him and the other defendants. Moving Parties also contend they are paying less in settlement than if found liable at trial, and their financial condition is sufficient to pay more than the settlement amount if a judgment was rendered against them at trial. Moving Parties further contend there was no collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct here, and that the settlement amount is not grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person would estimate Moving Parties’ liability to be in this case.
In opposition, Faaborg contends the Settlement Agreement does not satisfy the Tech-Bilt factors. More specifically, Faaborg does not contend there is any fraud or collusion, but does contend that the settlement amount is grossly disproportionate to what a jury would award Aversa due to Ford’s liability. Faaborg contends that the current evidence shows Ford bears the largest share of fault given the design of the 2004 Mustang vis-à-vis the location of the gas tank involved in the underlying accident. Faaborg contends Aversa’s potential recovery is in the tens of millions and Moving Parties’ confidential settlement is grossly disproportionate to their share of potential liability.
In reply, Moving Parties contend Faaborg’s arguments are misplaced because Aversa seeks only noneconomic damages against Faaborg, which provides only several liability between the defendants, as opposed to joint and several. Moving Parties contend their settlement offer must only be in the ballpark for their share of noneconomic damages. Moving Parties contend Faaborg has presented no evidence demonstrating that the settlement amount is not in the ballpark, and that the Mustang and its component parts were not reasonably safe for their foreseeable use. Moving Parties further contend Faaborg has not met his burden in demonstrating any purported lack of good faith in the Settlement Agreement, as Faaborg provided no admissible evidence showing the settlement amount is grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person would estimate its liability to be or that Ford was negligent or designed a defective vehicle. Moving Parties contend the items submitted in support of the opposition, namely a mischaracterization of deposition testimony, an email between counsel, an affidavit of no assets, and a death certificate for the decedent, do not show the settlement amount is disproportionate.
Analysis
The Court finds Moving Parties’ motion well taken. The settlement amount is a substantial sum of money that appears to be a rough approximation of Aversa’s potential recovery against Moving Parties. (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 499.) The Court agrees with Moving Parties that Faaborg did not present sufficient evidence demonstrating that the settlement amount is so disproportionate as to be “out of the ballpark,” especially in light of the Court sustaining Moving Parties’ evidentiary objections. (Ibid.)
Moreover, one of the purposes of settlement is to avoid exposure to even greater potential liability at trial, so lower settlement amounts are often proper. (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 499.) Either way, the Court finds the settlement amount to be substantial, which undercuts Faaborg’s arguments regarding the settlement amount being disproportionate.
Also, the Court finds that the settlement amount is roughly in proportion to Moving Parties’ potential liability as compared to Faaborg. It is not entirely clear who bears the greater share of responsibility here, as both Moving Parties’ and Faaborg’s alleged conduct could potentially be causes of the death of decedent Jeremy Olivas (the Decedent). (See Kesner v. Superior Ct. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, 1142 [stating elements of negligence, including causation].) It could be found that If Faaborg had not allegedly caused the accident, the Mustang likely would not have caught fire and resulted in the Decedent’s death. On the other hand, it could be found that if Ford had designed the vehicle differently such that the likelihood of spontaneous combustion following a collision was significantly reduced, then the Mustang arguably would not have caught fire and resulted in the Decedent’s death.
Furthermore, even assuming for the sake of argument that Moving Parties bear the greater share of responsibility here, that does not necessarily mean the settlement is in bad faith or that the settlement amount is grossly disproportionate to that liability. Again, as noted above, the settlement amount is a substantial sum of money. While wrongful death cases often produce large damage awards and recoveries, there is no standard settlement amount for such cases. (See N. Cnty. Contractor's Assn. v. Touchstone Ins. Servs. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1090.) Also, while Moving Parties are financially able to pay more than the settlement amount, that does not necessarily mean they must pay a larger amount. (See Adams Decl., ¶ 10; Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 499.)
Finally, Faaborg does not contend there is any fraud or collusion or tortious conduct here, nor have the parties presented any evidence indicating that Moving Parties would be liable to Faaborg for indemnity. Opp., 4:8-10; Far W. Fin. Corp., supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 816.) Faaborg also does not dispute Moving Parties’ argument that Faaborg’s liability may be offset by the amount of the settlement. (See generally, Opp.; Arbuthnot v. Relocation Realty Serv. Corp. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 682, 687.) Nor does Faaborg dispute the argument that Aversa is only seeking non-economic damages so there is no joint liability between Faaborg and Moving Parties.
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motion for good faith settlement determination.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion to seal settlement agreement. The Court will sign the proposed order.
The Court GRANTS the motion for good faith settlement determination. The Court will sign the proposed order.
Moving Parties are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.