Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 21STCV15013, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV15013    Hearing Date: January 19, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Ganchev-Chase v. Two R LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:                21STCV15013

MOTION:                  Motion for Good Faith Settlement Determination

HEARING DATE:   1/19/2024

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 moving party must make a sufficient showing of all the Tech-Bilt factors, which can be made in the moving papers or in counter-declarations filed after the nonsettling defendants have filed an opposition. (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.)

However, where good faith 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.” (See Grand Terrace, supra,192 Cal.App.3d at 1261 [holding that when no one objects to a motion for good faith determination, a barebones motion that sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration that set forth a brief background of the case was sufficient in action where motion only discussed two of the Tech-Bilt factors, settlement amount and policy limits and declaration only gave a brief background of the case].)

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 Rule 3.1382.)

Analysis

Defendant Two R LLC moves for an order determining that the settlement between itself and Plaintiff Julia Ganchev-Chase was entered into in good faith.

The instant motion is unopposed. Thus, a “barebones motion” is sufficient. (Grand Terrace, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d at 1261.) The basis and terms of the settlement are a settlement and release of all claims for $57,500.00. Defendant provides each party and pleading affected by the settlement notice of the motion. Defendant’s motion and declaration provides the background of the case, the procedural history of the case, and a basis for the Tech-Bilt factors described above. (See Nachiappan Decl.) The settlement appears to be in the “ballpark” of a good faith settlement. The Court therefore finds the settlement was made in good faith. (CCP § 877.6(a).)

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.