Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: SC129512, Date: 2024-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: SC129512    Hearing Date: May 23, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Goldberg v. Intext Design & Construction Inc., et al.

CASE NO.:                SC129512

MOTION:                  Motion to Determine Good Faith Settlement

HEARING DATE:   5/23/2024

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 

The instant motion is opposed. Therefore, the Cross-Defendant Hegoas must make a sufficient showing of the Tech-Bilt factors. Hegoas demonstrates that the proffered $150,000.00 settlement sum was made in good faith under the Tech-Bilt analysis. Indeed, Intex’s own hypotheticals show that the settlement sum is well within the reasonable range of Hegoas’s potential liability. The parties both cite $654,922.19 as defendants’ potential liability after trial. Hegoas’s offer of $150,000.00 is a substantial recovery on this figure. The Court must recognize that the settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial. Paying $150,000.00 on a potential $650,000.00 liability is reasonable to avoid the risks and costs of trial. Such a settlement is not so far “out of the ballpark” in relation to the Tech-Bilt factors as to be inconsistent with a settlement made in good faith.

Furthermore, there is no evidence of any collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed at injuring the interests of the non-settling defendants. The Court therefore finds the settlement was made in good faith. (CCP § 877.6(a).) Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.