Judge Malcolm Mackey, Case Number: BC657639, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: BC657639, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC657639 Hearing Date: September 5, 2023 Dept: 55

ALEXANDROV v. DOES BC657639

Hearing Date: 9/5/23, Dept. 55

#4: MOTION TO OPPOSE DEFENDANT MANITEX, INC.’S APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT BY DEFENDANTS GF AIR SERVICES, LLC, MR. CRANE, INC., INQUIPCO AND INQUIPCO PACIFIC, LLC.

Notice: Okay

Opposition

MP:

Defendants, GF AIR SERVICES, LLC, MR. CRANE, INC., INQUIPCO and INQUIPCO PACIFIC, LLC.

RP:

Defendants MANITEX, INC. and MANITEX INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Joinder of plaintiffs.

Summary

On 4/13/17, plaintiffs filed a Complaint.

On 12/11/17, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, alleging:

This action for negligence and strict liability arises out of an incident that occurred on December 26, 2015. Oleg Alexandrov was driving east on the 10 Freeway approaching Crenshaw Blvd and downtown Los Angeles. Marianna Alexandrov was sitting in the passenger seat while their two young grandchildren were passengers in the rear seats. Mr. Alexandrov was driving a Toyota Ray 4 in the number two lane of travel. Mr. Alexandrov was driving within the speed limit, in his lane of travel. Suddenly, a large metal object from the freeway lanes ahead of his vehicle flew onto the hood of his car, through his front windshield, skipped off the dashboard and steering wheel, and struck Plaintiff in the skull, causing severe and permanent brain injuries, which his wife witnessed.

The claims are:

1. NEGLIGENCE

2. NEGLIGENT PRODUCTS LIABILITY

3. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

4. STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY

5. BREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES

6. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM.

On 5/13/20, Plaintiff filed a partial dismissal without prejudice, as to defendant THE CRANE GUYS, LLC, for the following causes of action of the First Amended Complaint: Second cause of action for Negligent Products Liability, fourth cause of action for Strict Products Liability, and fifth cause of action for Breach of Express and Implied Warranties.

MP Positions

Moving parties request the Court to disapprove a settlement as being in good faith, on grounds including the following:

· The settlement amount is considerably out of the “ballpark” of the reasonable value of the case.

· Plaintiffs’ claim against moving party is for negligence, however the claims against Manitex are for strict product liability and breach of express and implied warranties.

· Defendant Manitex fails to allocate the settlement between the two Plaintiffs. L.C. Rudd & Son, Inc. v. Super. Ct. of Alameda (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 742, 750.

· Defendant Manitex makes no mention of its financial condition and insurance coverage in its Application for Good Faith Settlement.

RP Positions

Opposing parties request the Court to deny the motion to contest, on bases including the following:

· The settlement in the amount of $3.8 million dollars is in good faith.

· Plaintiffs failed to present any evidence that the subject outrigger pad was on the freeway because of a defect in its design or manufacture, or that the outrigger pad was possessed or controlled by the Inquipco defendants. Plaintiffs have virtually no evidence that the Inquipco defendants had anything to do with the subject incident.

· This matter was mediated on April 12, 2023, before the Hon. Richard Stone, judge retired. At that time, Manitex and plaintiffs, both represented by very experienced attorneys, reached a settlement of plaintiffs’ claims against Manitex.

· Defendant estimates plaintiffs’ total potential recovery at between $2.5-$4.5 million.

· “Tech-Bilt does not require settling defendants to present [financial condition] evidence.” Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 968.

· There was no collusion, fraud, or other tortious conduct involved in the settlement, which as noted above, was reached in an arm’s length transaction.

· Plaintiffs have a settlement agreement apportioning the $3.8M settlement, including the allocations of $3,2320,000 to Oleg Alexandrov for his negligence claim, and $570,000 for Marianna Alexandrov, $380,000 of which represents settlement of her claim for loss of consortium and $190,000 of which represents settlement of her claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Tentative Ruling

The motion hearing having been continued to this date, for supplemental documents to address allocation of proceeds among both plaintiffs, the Court rules as follows:

The motion opposing a determination of good faith settlement is denied.

The Court finds that all Tech-Bilt factors are satisfied, and that there is some admissible evidence supporting the liability of moving defendants, and that the $3.8 million settlement of settling parties is “in the ballpark” of potential liability and is in good faith.

The Tech-Bilt factor regarding allocation of proceeds among plaintiffs applies unless there is only one plaintiff. Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 968.

As to opposed motions, moving party must show by competent evidence all Tech-Bilt factors. Mediplex of Cal. v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 34 Cal. App. 4th 748, 753 n.4; Greshko v. Los Angeles (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 822.

The Tech-Bilt factors are:

A rough approximation of plaintiffs' total recovery and the settlor's proportionate liability;
The amount paid in settlement;
A recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than if found liable after a trial;
The allocation of the settlement proceeds among plaintiffs;
The settlor's financial condition and insurance policy limits, if any; and
Evidence of any collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct between the settlor and the plaintiffs aimed at making the nonsettling parties pay more than their fair share.

Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.

Parties challenging the good faith nature of a settlement agreement have the burden to demonstrate that it lies so far “out of the ballpark” of the Tech-Bilt factors that it is inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute. Nutrition Now, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 209, 213-14. “‘[A] defendant's settlement figure must not be grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person, at the time of the settlement, would estimate the settling defendant's liability to be.’” Long Beach Memorial Medical Center v. Sup. Ct. (2009) 172 Cal. App. 4th 865, 874.

“A settlement can be in good faith even though the amount is low compared to the damages claimed in the complaint if there is evidence which would negate the defendant's liability entirely. [Wysong & Miles Co. v. W. Indus. Movers, 143 Cal. App. 3d 278, 191 Cal. Rptr. 671 (2d Dist. 1983)]” Cal. Civ. Prac. Torts § 4:22.

Parties contesting good faith settlements are not required to present proof of their financial condition or liability insurance policy limits in support of a good faith determination. Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 968.

"The trial court is given broad discretion in deciding whether a settlement is in 'good faith' for purposes of section 877.6, and its decision may be reversed only upon a showing of abuse of discretion." TSI Seismic Tenant Space, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 159, 165.

Judges’ have limited discretion in ruling upon a motion for good faith settlement, and the rulings must be made “in view of the equitable goals of the statute, in conformity with the spirit of the law and in a manner that serves the interests of justice”, and must serve the goals of “encouraging settlement among all interested parties” and “equitably allocating costs among multiple tortfeasors”, as opposed to allowing a party to obtain “protection from its indemnification obligation at bargain-basement prices.” Long Beach Memorial Medical Center v. Sup. Ct. (2009) 172 Cal. App. 4th 865, 873, 876.

“[T]he determination whether the settlement was in good faith must be based on competent, admissible evidence.” Brehm Communities v. Sup. Ct. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 730, 736. A determination of a good faith settlement must be supported by substantial evidence. Norco Delivery Service, Inc. v. Owens Corning Fiberglas (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 955, 962.

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 (good faith settlement no bar to claims re express indemnity agreements). “A motion or application for determination of good faith settlement may include a request to dismiss a pleading or a portion of a pleading.” CRC Rule 3.1382.