Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

CARIN MEYER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

LARRY BENSON CONSTRUCION, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 22STCV36814

DEPARTMENT 45

[TENTATIVE] RULING

Action Filed: 11/21/22

Trial Date: 04/14/2025

Hearing date: November 19, 2024

Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Defendant Evaristo Cardenas dba Varo Sheet Metal

Responding Party: None

Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

The Court considered the moving papers.

The Court GRANTS Defendant/Cross-Defendant’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement as to the settlement between Plaintiff and Defendant/Cross-Defendant.

Background

This is a construction defect action arising from a home improvement contract entered in April 2020. On November 21, 2022, plaintiff Carin Meyer (“Plaintiff”) filed her complaint against defendants Larry Benson Construction, Inc., Larry Benson, Sawdust Custom Cabinets, Inc., McCleery Company dba The Door Outlet, Evaristo Cardenas dba Varo Sheet Metal Design Works, North River Insurance Company, and Does 1 through 50, asserting (1) breach of contract; (2) negligence; (3) breach of warranty; (4) violation of B&P Code section 7031; and (5) recovery on license bond.

On February 28, 2023, defendants/cross-complainants Larry Benson Construction, Inc. and Larry Benson filed their cross-complaint against Moes 1 through 25, asserting (1) negligence; (2) equitable indemnity; (3) contribution; and (4) declaratory relief.

On May 26, 2023, dismissal was entered as to defendant North River Insurance Company.

On August 7, 2023, defendant/cross-complainant Sawdust Custom Cabinets, Inc. filed its cross-complaint against Zoes 1 through 10, asserting (1) equitable indemnity and contribution; (2) implied indemnity; and (3) declaratory relief.

On February 1, 2024, cross-defendant/cross-complainant Fleetwood Aluminum Products, Inc. filed its cross-complaint against Zoes 1 through 25, asserting (1) equitable indemnity; (2) implied indemnity and contribution; and (3) negligence.

On February 14, 2024, cross-defendant/cross-complainant Sun Valley Skylights, Inc. filed its cross-complaint against cross-defendants, asserting (1) equitable indemnity; (2) contribution; and (3) declaratory relief.

On March 4, 2024, defendant/cross-complainants Varo Sheet Metal Design (Moe 2) and Evaristo Cardenas dba Varo Sheet Metal Design (Moe 3) filed its cross-complaint against Roes 1 through 10, asserting (1) implied and equitable indemnity; (2) contribution; and (3) declaratory relief.

On July 16, 2024, the complaint was dismissed as to all parties, except Doe 11, Kenneth James Henson dba Conejo Oaks Roofing.

On August 8, 2024, the cross-complaint filed by Larry Benson Construction and Larry Benson on February 28, 2023 was dismissed as to Sawdust Custom Cabinets, Inc, Fleetwood Products, Inc., McCleery Company, Inc. dba The Door Outlet, Evaristo Cardenas dba Varo Sheet Metal Design, and Varo Sheet Metal Design.

On August 30, 2024, the cross-complaint filed by Evaristo Cardenas dba Varo Sheet Metal on March 4, 2024 was dismissed.

On September 25, 2024, the cross-complaint filed by Larry Benson Construction and Larry Benson on February 28, 2023 was dismissed as to Conejo Oaks Roofing and Kenneth James Henson.

On October 16, 2024, the complaint was dismissed as to Doe 11 Kenneth James Henson dba Conejo Oaks Roofing.

On October 18, 2024, defendant/cross-defendant Evaristo Cardenas dba Varo Sheet Metal (“Varo Sheet Metal”) filed the instant motion for determination of good faith settlement. No opposition was filed.

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, a court may approve a settlement by determining it was made in good faith, and such a determination shall bar any other joint tortfeasor from further claims against the settling tortfeasor. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(1).) “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (c).) The burden is on the party asserting the lack of good faith. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).)

In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, the California Supreme Court set forth factors to consider when determining whether a settlement was made in good faith: (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.

The trial court enjoys broad discretion in determining whether a settlement was entered in good faith and in allocating potential liability and exposure among joint tortfeasors. (Norco Delivery Services v. Owens Corning Fiberglas (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 955, 962.) A reviewing court will “assess whether the good faith determination is buttressed by any substantial evidence.” (Ibid.)

In City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, the court of appeal upheld the trial court’s determination that an uncontested motion for good faith settlement was entered in good faith when the moving papers had not provided information concerning all of the Tech-Bilt factors, but only stated the amount of the settlement and the policy limits. The court first noted that Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 had not been amended to add procedural requirements since the decision in Tech-Bilt, and approved the following procedure:

“This court notes that of the hundreds of motions for good faith determination presented for trial court approval each year, the overwhelming majority are unopposed and granted summarily by the trial court. At the time of filing in many cases, the moving party does not know if a contest will develop. If each motion required a full recital by declaration or affidavit setting forth a complete factual response to all of the Tech-Bilt factors, literally thousands of attorney hours would be consumed and inch-thick motions would have to be read and considered by trial courts in an exercise which would waste valuable judicial and legal time and clients' resources. It must also be remembered that Tech-Bilt was decided on a contested basis. We are unaware of any reported decision which has reversed an uncontested good faith determination and we, therefore, conclude that only when the good faith nature of a settlement is disputed, it is incumbent upon the trial court to consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors. That is to say, when no one objects, the 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, 192 Cal.App.3d at p.1261 (emphasis added).)

Once evidence of the good faith of a settlement has been presented, the burden remains on any challenging party to establish a lack of good faith. (Ibid; Code Civ. Pro., § 877.6 subd., (d).)

Discussion

Defendant/Cross-Defendant Varo Sheet Metal’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is granted. Varo Sheet Metal seeks a determination that its settlement with Plaintiff is in good faith, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 877 and 877.6, et seq., and in satisfaction of factors set forth in Tech-Bilt. Varo Sheet Metal also seeks a dismissal of any an all claims for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault against it, and a bar of any and all claims made by other joint tortfeasors or co-obligors for equitable indemnity and or contribution.

Varo Sheet Metal’s Motion sets for the ground of good faith, and it is accompanied by the Declaration of Steven A. Sobel, which sets forth a brief background of the case. (Declaration of Steven A. Sobel (“Sobel Decl.”).) According to the declaration, this construction defect case arises from a home improvement construction project at the single-family home located at 24702 Cordillera Drive, Calabasas, CA. (Sobel Decl. ¶ 1.) Plaintiff entered into an April 15, 2020, contract with Benson Construction, Inc., who served as General Contractor and hired Varo Sheet Metal to perform sheet metal installation, including sheet metal around beams and a skylight. (Ibid.) With the help of mediator Hon. Richard A. Stone, Varo Sheet Metal and Plaintiff reached a settlement agreement where Varo Sheet Metal agrees to pay Plaintiff $50,000 in exchange for a release of all claims and a dismissal with prejudice from Plaintiff’s complaint. (Sobel Decl. ¶ 2.) The settlement between Varo Sheet Metal and Plaintiff was not obtained through collusion, concealment, or for the purpose of injuring any of the other parties or potential parties to this action. (Sobel Decl. ¶ 3.) Varo Sheet Metal served the Motion and accompanying declaration to Plaintiff, Defendants/Cross-Complainants Larry Benson and Larry Benson Construction, Inc., Defendant/Cross-Defendant Sawdust Custom Cabinets, Inc., Defendant McCleery Company, Inc., dba The Door Outlet, Defendant/Cross-Defendant Fleetwood Aluminum Products, Inc., and Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Sun Valley Skylights, Inc. No non-settling party has served or filed a motion to contest Varo Sheet Metal’s Motion.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant/Cross-Defendant Evaristo Cardenas dba Varo Sheet Metal unopposed Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement filed on October 18, 2024.

It is so ordered.

Dated: November 19, 2024

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA

Judge of the Superior Court