Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV18090, Date: 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18090    Hearing Date: April 6, 2023    Dept: 55

RAMIREZ v. MOGA 1967, LP       ,                                                            22STCV18090

Hearing Date:  4/6/23,  Dept. 55.

#4:   MOTION  FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND SOLA IMPACT FUND II LP.

Notice:  Okay

No Opposition

MP:  Defendant SOLA IMPACT FUND II LP.

RP:  

Summary

On 6/2/22, plaintiffs filed a Complaint alleging that they are long-term tenants of 4517 ½ S. Hooper Ave., Los Angeles, where defendants, as owner and manager, failed to repair uninhabitable conditions,, including a collapsed and leaky roof and mold, which caused health conditions such as asthma and emotional distress.

The causes of action are:

(1) BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY (TORT) BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT

(2) BREACH OF CONVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT

(3) NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF THE PREMISES.

(4) NUISANCE

(5) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.

MP Positions

Moving party requests an order determining a good faith settlement (Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6(a)(1)), and barring any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from asserting any pending or future claims against SOLA IMPACT FUND II LP. and any of its related persons or entities (C.C.P. § 877.6(c.)), on grounds including the following:

·         Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the Complaint as to co-Defendant SOLA, in exchange for $34,000.00, which is the alleged amount of damages, although settling Defendant denies liability.

·         The terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement were negotiated in good faith by sophisticated parties represented by counsel. (Feldstein Decl., ¶10(b)).

·         There has been no fraud, tortious conduct, nor collusion between Plaintiffs and SOLA in reaching this Settlement Agreement.

Tentative Ruling

The unopposed motion is granted, as prayed.

Where a good-faith settlement is unopposed, counsel’s bare-bones declaration is sufficient for a good-faith determination.   City of Grand Terrace v. Sup. Ct. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261;  As to opposed motions, moving party would need to show by competent evidence all Tech-Bilt factors.  Mediplex of Cal. v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 34 Cal. App. 4th 748, 753 n.4.

A good-faith-settlement determination bars claims for equitable indemnity and contribution by other joint tortfeasors.  CCP §877.6(c); Mid-Century Ins. Exch. v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 310, 315;  Willdan v. Sialic Contractors Corp. (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 47, 54, 55 n.6 (but good faith settlement no bar to claims re express indemnity agreements).