Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 21BBCV00861, Date: 2024-05-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21BBCV00861 Hearing Date: May 1, 2024 Dept: P
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER DENYING THE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a discriminatory housing case. Plaintiffs
Julio Santos Mayorga, Heidy Santos Soto, Elisama Santos Soto and Ruth Santos
Soto allege that the former owner and current owner of their apartment complex,
Defendant 7055 Coldwater Canyon Avenue LLC and Shind LLC, racially
discriminated against them and violated the implied warranty of habitability in
providing apartments with mold, plumbing issues, and intermittent hot water.
Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion to determine
the good faith of the settlement between Plaintiffs Julio Santos Mayorga, Heidy
Santos Soto, Elisama Santos Soto and Ruth Santos Soto and Defendant 7055
Coldwater Canyon Avenue LLC. Plaintiff filed this motion on February 27, 2024. Defendant Shind LLC filed an
opposition on April 17, 2024. Plaintiffs filed a reply on April 22, 2024.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Where a settling party makes a motion for court
determination that a settlement is in good faith, Code Civ. Proc. §877.6 (a)(1)
applies. It 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.”
Determining the good faith of a settlement requires a trial
court to find that the amount of the settlement is within the reasonable range
of the settling tortfeasor’s proportional share of comparative liability for
the plaintiff’s injuries. Making such a determination requires an examination
of the Tech-Bilt factors: 1) a rough approximation of plaintiff’s total
recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid in
settlement; (3) the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (4) a
recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he
were found liable after a trial; (5) the financial conditions and insurance
policy limits of settling defendants; and (6) the existence of collusion,
fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of the non-settling
defendants. (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985)
38 Cal.3d 488, 498-501.)
III. ANALYSIS
In
their lawsuit, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants discriminated against them as
tenants and provided unlivable apartments. Coldwater is the former owner of
Plaintiffs’ apartment complex, where Plaintiffs have lived since 2005. Shind is
the current owner, having assumed ownership of the property in 2021. Defendant Coldwater has settled with Plaintiffs
for a total of $100,000, allocated as follows: $47,500 to Julio Santos Mayorga,
$47,500 to Heidy Santos Soto, $2,500 to Elisama Santos Soto and $2,500 is to Ruth
Santos Soto.
The
motion for determination of good faith settlement is accompanied by the
declaration of Plaintiffs’ attorney Christian Oronsaye. (Oronsaye Declaration)
He declares that Coldwater owned the building from 2005 to 2021. (Oronsaye
Decl. ¶ 6.) He declares the settlement is in good faith and is proportionate to
Coldwater’s liability. (Oronsaye Decl. ¶¶ 13-15.)
In
opposition, Shind argues that the proposed settlement is not in good faith. Because
this motion is contested, Plaintiffs are required to produce the actual
settlement agreement so the opposing and non-settling Defendant may evaluate it
for good faith. (Mediplex of California, Inc. v. Supr. Ct. (1995)
34 Cal.App.4th 748, 754 [if motion for good faith is opposed, required to
produce the written settlement agreement]; J. Allen Radford Co. v. Supr. Ct.
(1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1418, 1419 [the non-settling defendant who opposed the
motion entitled to see the terms of said sliding scale recovery agreement].) Here,
“[t]here are no facts provided in the Motion which the Court can evaluate to
determine whether the $100,000 settlement between Plaintiffs and 7055 Coldwater
Canyon, is disproportionate to the potential liability of Shind LLC.” (Opposition
p. 8:20-22.) The good faith motion cannot be granted without providing a copy
of the settlement agreement to Shind LLC, as a non-settling and opposing
Defendant.
Shind
argues that the settlement cannot be properly evaluated under Tech-Bilt until
Plaintiff provides further information. Shind further argues that the
settlement amount of $100,000 is disproportionate to Defendant Coldwater’s
liability because Coldwater owned the apartment complex for 16 years during Plaintiffs’
occupancy. In contrast, Shind owned the
complex for three years, from 2021 to the present. (Avrahamy Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs
demanded $220,000.00 from Shind to settle the case. (Avrahamy Decl. ¶ 7 [detailing
Section 998 offers from Plaintiffs to Shind].) Given the number of years that
Shind has owned the building, the settlement demand of $220,000 seems disproportionate
to the Coldwater settlement of $100,000. Shind argues that it cannot be held
liable for more than double Coldwater’s liability because Coldwater owned the
apartment complex (during Plaintiffs’ occupancy) for five times as long as Shind.
As
noted above, determining the good faith of a settlement requires a trial court
to find that the amount of the settlement is within the reasonable range of the
settling tortfeasor’s proportional share of comparative liability for the
plaintiff’s injuries. At present, this Court is not able to make that
finding. Therefore, the motion is
denied.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court denies the motion for determination of good faith
settlement.
Counsel for Shind LLC shall
provide notice of the Court’s ruling.
JARED D. MOSES
JUDGE
OF THE SUPERIOR COURT