Judge: Melissa R. Mccormick, Case: Watson v. Tran, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Defendants Vivian Mai Buu and Vivian Mai Buu dba Number One Real Estate’s Motion for Good Faith Settlement Determination

Defendants Vivian Mai Buu and Vivian Mai Buu dba Number One Real Estate (together, “Buu”) move the court pursuant to California Civil Procedure Code § 877.6(a) for an order deeming the settlement between plaintiffs Carolyn S. Watson and Laneisheia C. Howard and Buu to have been made in good faith.  No oppositions to the motion have been filed.  For the following reasons, Buu’s motion is granted.

This case arises out of a dispute over the purchase of real property.  Buu was a real estate agent/broker for the sellers.  Pursuant to the settlement, Buu will pay plaintiffs $9,000 in exchange for a dismissal with prejudice of plaintiffs’ claims against Buu and a release of claims.

California Civil Procedure Code § 877.6(a)(1) states that 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.  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.  Id. § 877.6(b).  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.  Id. § 877.6(c).  The party asserting a lack of good faith has the burden of proof on that issue.  Id. § 877.6(d). 

The purpose of the court’s review of a settlement for good faith is to determine whether the settlement prejudices the interests of nonsettling tortfeasors.  Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assocs. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 494 n.4.  The court considers a number of factors in evaluating a settlement for good faith:  a “rough approximation” of the plaintiffs’ total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability; the amount paid in settlement; the allocation of the settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; and a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than the settlor would pay if found liable after a trial.  Id. at 499.  Other relevant considerations include the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of the settling defendants, as well as the existence of collusion, fraud or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.  Id.  Practical considerations require that the evaluation be made on the basis of information available at the time of the settlement.  Id.  The party asserting a lack of good faith should be permitted to demonstrate, if it can, that the settlement is so far “out of the ballpark” in relation to these factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute.  Id.

Evaluation of the Tech-Bilt factors and the evidence presented demonstrates that the settlement was made in good faith.  Tech-Bilt instructs that a court evaluating a settlement for good faith should recognize that a settling party should pay less in settlement than she would pay if found liable at trial.  There is no evidence of collusion, fraud or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.  Buu’s motion for an order deeming the settlement between plaintiffs and Buu to be in good faith is granted.           

Buu to give notice.