Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC01134, Date: 2023-02-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC01134    Hearing Date: February 22, 2023    Dept: 26

Madoian Enterprises, Inc. v. Butler, et al.
MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

(CCP § 877.6)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants/Cross-Complainants Paul Ling & Edythe Ling’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Madoian Enterprises, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract and common counts against Defendant Terrence Butler (“Defendant Butler”) on February 9, 2021. Defendants Paul Ling and Edythe Ling were added to the Complaint by Doe amendment on May 26, 2021. Defendants Paul Ling and Edythe Ling (“Defendants / Cross-Complainants”) filed a Cross-Complaint for indemnity, contribution, and related claims against Plaintiff and Defendant Butler on September 15, 2021.

Defendants / Cross-Complainants filed the instant Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement on January 31, 2023. No opposition has been filed to date.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 states, in pertinent part:

(a) (1) 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.           

            . . .

(b) The issue of the good faith of a settlement may be determined by the court on the basis of affidavits served with the notice of hearing, and any counteraffidavits filed in response, or the court may, in its discretion, receive other evidence at the hearing.

(c) A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.

(d) The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6.) The California Supreme Court developed a number of different factors to consider when determining whether a settlement is made in “good faith,” including: (1) (a) a rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery and (b) the settlor’s proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) the allocation of the settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (4) a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than if found liable after a trial; (5) the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of the settling defendant; and (6) the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct between the settlor and the plaintiffs aimed at making the nonsettling parties pay more than their fair share.  (Tech-Bilt v. Woodward-Clyde Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.) The party asserting the lack of good faith has the burden of proof on that issue (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d)) and should demonstrate, if he can, that the settlement is so far “out of the ballpark” in relation to the above as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute. (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at 501.)

Discussion

Plaintiff and Defendants / Cross-Complainants have reached a settlement in this action, as follows. In exchange for dismissing Defendants / Cross-Complainants from the action with prejudice and release of all of Plaintiff’s claims against them, Defendants / Cross-Complainants’ insurer will make a payment of $6,750.00 to Plaintiff. (Motion, Abesadze Decl., ¶¶12.) The settlement was reached through arms’ length negotiations. (Id. at ¶14.) Defendants / Cross-Complainants contend this settlement is within the ballpark of liability based on the extent of Plaintiff’s alleged damages in the amount of $13,500.00. (Id. at ¶13.)

Insofar as the settlement reached is approximately half of the amount sought in the Complaint and no party is challenging the manner in which the settlement was reached, the Court finds Defendants / Cross-Complainants have demonstrated the settlement in in the ballpark of liability and was reached in good faith.

Conclusion

Defendants/Cross-Complainants Paul Ling & Edythe Ling’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.