Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 20STCV29419, Date: 2025-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV29419    Hearing Date: May 22, 2025    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Ray v. City of Malibu, et al.

CASE NO.:                20STCV29419

MOTION:                  Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

HEARING DATE:   5/22/2025

Legal Standard

In an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt, a party to that action may file a motion seeking a determination from the court that the settlement between the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors was made in good faith. (CCP § 877.6(a).) The notice of motion or application for good faith determination must list each party and pleading or portion of pleading affected by the settlement and the date on which the affected pleading was filed. (CRC Rule 3.1382.) 

The California Supreme Court in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, established the standard for determining whether a settlement was made in good faith. Under Tech-Bilt, the following factors are considered: (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. (Id. at 498-501.) Additionally, the evaluation must be made based on the information available at the time of settlement. (Id. at 599.) 

Where good faith is contested, the settling party must make a sufficient showing of all the Tech-Bilt factors. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261-62.) “Once there is a showing made by the settlor of the settlement, the burden of proof on the issue of good faith shifts to the non-settlor who asserts that the settlement was not made in good faith.” (Id. at 1262; CCP § 877.6(d).) In other words, the nonsettling defendant should demonstrate “that the settlement is so far ‘out of the ballpark’ in relation to the [Tech-Bilt] factors as to be inconsistent” with a settlement made in good faith. (Id. at 500.) 

If the court makes a good faith determination, the court may dismiss the settling party from comparative indemnity claims if the settling party has made such a request at the time of making the good faith motion. (CCP §§ 877, 877.6(c); CRC 3.1382.)  

ANALYSIS 

Defendant Nathan Wells Cox contests the application for determination of Good Faith Settlement between Plaintiff Christina Ray and Defendants Tom Villante and Miracle Mile I, LLC.

The Court notes that the motion is substantively moot. The Court approved the settling parties’ March 21, 2025, application on April 14, 2025. The application had been served by electronic means, in addition to mail service.  Defendant filed this motion to contest that application the next day, on April 15, 2025. Thus, the challenge to the application is moot.

Even considering the merits of Defendant’s challenge, the settling parties demonstrated that the Tech-Bilt factors weigh in favor of good faith. The material terms of the settlement were: a) Caltrans agreed to pay Plaintiff the sum of $75,000.00, dismiss its operative Cross-Complaint; b) Villante and Miracle Mile agreed to pay Plaintiff the sum of $50,000.00 and dismiss their operative Complaint/Cross-Complaints; and c) each party will bear their own fees and costs. (Hernandez Decl., ¶8.) The settlement was reached after extensive arm’s length negotiations including two sessions of private mediation. (¶ 10.) Counsel disclaims any collusion, fraud, or tortuous conduct involved in reaching the settlement that is intended in any way to injure the non-settling parties. (Id.)

The settling parties demonstrated that the settlors’ liability would be a minimal portion of plaintiff’s total recovery, if anything. The action arises from a pedestrian-vehicle collision on Pacific Coast Highway. Settling Defendants owned property where a private event was hosted by Warner Records, Inc. Warner hired staff to work its event, including Plaintiff for bartending services (by and though Sunset Boulevardier, LLC). (Hernandez Decl., ¶3.) Defendants made no admissions of liability, and will testify that they leased their real property to Warner for a private event and were not present nor did they control any aspects of the event including but not limited to the contractors Warner hired, did not own or control the public roadway where the incident occurred, nor did they own or control the vehicle driven by Cox. (Id., ¶11.) The incident occurred after Warner’s event and occurred across the street in the public highway on Pacific Coast Highway, by a motor vehicle driven by Cox. (Id.) These facts show that the Tech-Bilt factors weigh in favor of good faith.

The Court notes no evidence of Villante and Miracle Mile’s financial conditions or insurance policy limits. This failure suggests that Villante and Miracle Mile have substantial assets or insurance policy limits which could cover Plaintiff’s total recovery.

Cox fails to show that, under such circumstances, the settlement was so far “out of the ballpark” in relation to the Tech-Bilt factors as to be inconsistent with a settlement made in good faith. Cox notes that estimated costs of Plaintiff’s treatment from a health care provider for injuries she attributed to the Subject Accident were approximately $341,676.50, with treatment ongoing. (Nguyen Decl., Ex. A [FI nos. 6.3, 6.4, 6.7].) Cox also notes that the lease agreement between the settling defendants and Warner required Warner to provide valet, and that Plaintiff contributed to her own injuries by not yielding to traffic. Even considering these additional facts, Villante and Miracle Mile’s $50,000.00 settlement would still be “within the ballpark” of Plaintiff’s potential recovery against them. This is true, even if the court assumes a rough approximate recovery of $500,000.00. While Plaintiff might have recovered a greater amount against them at trial, the settling defendants should pay less in settlement than if they were found liable after a trial.

Under the totality of the circumstances, the Tech-Bilt factors weigh in favor of finding a good faith settlement between the parties. The $50,000.00 settlement is substantial. Defendants show minimal proportionate liability. The settlement was reached after extensive arm’s length negotiations including two sessions of private mediation. There is no substantial evidence suggesting collusion, fraud, or tortuous conduct.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.