Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV02283, Date: 2024-11-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23SMCV02283 Hearing Date: November 22, 2024 Dept: M
CASE NAME: Zhakypova v. Voranova,
et al.
CASE NO.: 23SMCV02283
MOTION: Motion
for Determination of Good Faith Settlement
HEARING DATE: 11/22/2024
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.” (City of
Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 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 3.1382.)
ANALYSIS
Defendant Valentina Voronova moves for an order determining that the
settlement reached between Voronova and Plaintiff Raia Zhakypova was made in
good faith. (CCP § 877.6.) Defendants Maison Reeves HOA and Golden Estate
Management oppose the motion. As the motion is opposed and good faith is
challenged, Voronova must make a sufficient showing of the Tech-Bilt
factors in reply.
Plaintiff
and Defendant Voronova have entered into a settlement for $100,000, which is
below Ms. Voronova’s homeowner’s insurance policy limit and her workers’ compensation
coverage limit in the same policy of insurance. It is undisputed that Plaintiff
was employed by Voronova when she slipped and fell on a pool of water while
cleaning Voronova’s toilet.
The
parties dispute the approximation of Plaintiff’s
total recovery and Voronova’s proportionate
liability. Voronova argues that she bears little to no liability in this
action because she is not actually an employer of Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s
exclusive remedy would be a worker’s compensation claim. Opposing parties
observe that Plaintiff has filed a CCP section 998 settlement offer to Voronova
for $400,000.00. They note that has Plaintiff complained of ongoing pain and
injuries to her left hip, back pain, left leg, knee, and thigh. (Def. Ex. E.) The
record thus shows Plaintiff’s action has a rough approximate value of
$400,000.00. The court must recognize at this
juncture that Voronova should pay less in settlement than she would if she
were found liable.
Opposing parties argue that there is evidence of collusion,
fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure their interests. Voronova admitted
in verified discovery responses that she was the employer of Plaintiff. (Ex. J.)
Opposing parties observe a contradiction: as a part of settlement, Plaintiff
signed a release that agreed “for the purposes of settlement” that she was not
an employee of Voronova. Even so, Opposing Parties fail to show that this is
collusion or fraud aimed at injuring their interests. Opposing Parties do not
explain how Plaintiff’s stipulation that she was not an employee would affect Opposing
Parties’ rights in any way.
Applying the Tech-Bilt factors, the
settlement was made in good faith. Opposing parties do not show that the
proposed settlement is inconsistent with a settlement made in good
faith. Simply put, $100,000.00 is a substantial
settlement, within the “ballpark” of the $400,000.00 or higher valuation if this
matter proceeded to trial.
Accordingly,
the motion is GRANTED.