Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 21STCV27614, Date: 2024-04-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 21STCV27614, Date: 2024-04-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV27614 Hearing Date: April 15, 2024 Dept: 30

ROSA ISELA SANCHEZ CENA vs ODELL MITCHELL SIMMS, SR., et al.

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s motion for determination of good faith settlement is DENIED without prejudice. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Legal Standard

A plaintiff may settle with one of several joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract without releasing the others. Provided it is in “good faith,” the settlement discharges the settling defendant from liability for equitable contribution or comparative indemnity but¿not¿for contractual indemnity. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 877(a)–(b).)

In order to determine whether the settlement was made in good faith under CCP section 877.6, the Court applies the following factors identified by the California Supreme Court in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488 to determine whether the settlement amount is “in the ballpark” of the settling party’s share of liability for the injuries:

1) a rough approximation of the plaintiff's total recovery;

2) an approximation of the settling party's share of the liability;

3) recognition that a settling party should pay less in settlement than if found liable after a trial;

4) the allocation of the settlement proceeds among plaintiffs;

5) the settling party's financial condition and insurance policy limits;

6) evidence that the plaintiff and the settling party acted with an intent to make the non-settling parties pay more than their fair share (considered fraud and collusion under Tech-Bilt).

The settlement must be within the¿“reasonable range”¿(within the “ballpark”)¿of the settling tortfeasor's share of liability for the plaintiff's injuries—taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the particular case. (Tech-Bilt, Inc., supra, 38 Cal.3d at 499.)

Discussion

Defendant Carter moves for a good faith settlement determination of the settlement between Plaintiffs and himself. However, no other Defendants have been served or appeared in this matter. Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 proceedings are inappropriate when only one alleged tortfeasor is made a party to the action.

The Legislature imposed the requirement of good faith primarily to protect the interests of nonsettling defendants. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1263.) “It seems axiomatic that in order for a trial court to make a binding judicial determination of good faith, those ‘tortfeasors’ known to have an interest in the outcome of the lawsuit must somehow be brought before the court so that the matter can be fully and fairly litigated.” (Singer Co. v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 875, 888.) For this reason, section 877.6 proceedings are inappropriate when only one alleged tortfeasor is made a party to the action. (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1178-1179.)

The language in Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. implies that CCP section 877.6 only applies when multiple co-tortfeasors have appeared in a case:

"Whitecliff correctly observes that section 877.6, by its terms, applies when “... it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors....” (§ 877.6, subd. (a)(1), italics added.) Use of the word “alleged” in this context does not mean, however, that section 877.6 proceedings are appropriate whenever a complaint names joint tortfeasors, even when only one tortfeasor is made a party. Subdivision (c) of section 877.6, which states the consequences of a section 877.6 ruling, demonstrates that the section applies only to actions involving both settling and nonsettling tortfeasors or co-obligors: “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....” (§ 877.6, subd. (c).) Read in context, the word “alleged” in the statute's first sentence merely acknowledges that the party need not be found liable in tort; allegations are sufficient. It is essential, however that the action involve two or more parties who are at least alleged to be joint tortfeasors or co-obligors and that some, but not all, of the parties have settled.

(Id.)

The party challenging the good faith of a settlement “is not only a stranger to the settlement but has an understandable interest in establishing the lack of good faith in the settling parties, thus preserving the challenger’s right to contribution or partial indemnity.” (Singer, supra, 179 Cal.App.3d at p. 889.) “The financial stake an absent tortfeasor has in the fairness of a settlement between the plaintiff and a joint tortfeasor equates to the deprivation of a property interest, to wit: a nonsettling tortfeasor may be forced to bear a share of the liability great than that proportionate to his fault when the plaintiff’s recovery is reduced only by the monetary amount of a prior settlement.” (Id. at p. 890.) “When the parties to a settlement know, or reasonably should know, that a nonsettling tortfeasor is exposed to substantial potential liability, such that his joinder as a defendant or cross-defendant is likely, the property right of that nonsettling tortfeasor must be regarded as significant.” (Id. at pp. 890-891.)

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for determination of good faith settlement is DENIED without prejudice.