Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 23STCV06483, Date: 2024-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV06483, Date: 2024-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV06483 Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 Dept: 61

TERRICE MCCLINTON-MONTOGMERY vs AHMC SAN GABRIEL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER LP, et al.

TENTATIVE

Defendants Miracle Mile Healthcare Center and Renew Health Consulting Services, LLC’s Application for Good Faith Settlement Determination is GRANTED.

Defendants to give notice.

DISCUSSION

I. MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

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.

(California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 2.550, subd. (d).)

A party moving to seal records must make a sufficient evidentiary showing to overcome the presumed right of public access to the documents. (see Huffy Corp. v. Superior Court (“Huffy”) (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 97, 108.)

Defendants Miracle Mile Healthcare Center, LLC and Renew Health consulting Services, LLC (Defendants) seek to seal the unredacted declaration of Jennifer Hassel, submitted in support of their good faith settlement application. The redacted declaration filed with the court redacts only the settlement amount. (Hassel Decl. ¶ 4.)

Courts have found that confidentiality provisions in settlement agreements have been found to support an overriding interest in favor of sealing records. (See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1283.) This interest will be prejudiced if sealing is not permitted, and the proposed order, sealing only that portion of the declaration containing the settlement amount, is narrowly tailored to protect that interest.

The motion is therefore GRANTED.

I. GOOD-FAITH SETTLEMENT

Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6(a)(1) provides:

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 of Civil Procedure § 877(c) in turn provides:

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.

A good faith settlement determination also reduces the claims against the nonwetting defendants in the amount stipulated by the settlement. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 877(a).)

Where a motion for determination of good faith settlement is uncontested, a "barebones" motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is sufficient to support a good faith determination. (See City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1261.)

Defendants Miracle Mile Healthcare Center, LLC and Renew Health consulting Services, LLC (Defendants) seek approval of the settlement entered between them and Plaintiff Terrice McClinton-Montgomery (Plaintiff). The terms of the settlement are confidential and have been submitted to the court under seal and served upon the other parties to this action. (Hassell Decl. ¶ 6.) Defendants’ counsel submits a declaration providing a brief background of the case and an attestation that the settlement was reached by arms-length negotiation, without collusion. ((Hassell Decl. ¶¶ 2, 17.) No opposition to the application has been filed.

The motion is therefore GRANTED.