Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV15820, Date: 2023-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15820    Hearing Date: February 8, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff Jose Armando Mendoza settled her claims against Defendants Ron Dalah and Amanda Grove (collectively, Defendants).  Defendants move for a determination that the settlement with Plaintiff was entered in good faith.  The motion is unopposed.

ANALYSIS

Under section 877.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure,^[1] “[a] determination by the court that [a] settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor . . . from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor . . . for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.”  (§ 877.6, subd. (c).)  Additionally, a determination that a settlement was made in good faith will reduce the claims against the non-settling defendants by the amount specified in the settlement agreement.  (§ 877.6, subd. (a).)  “The party asserting the lack of good faith has the burden of proof on that issue.”  (§ 877.6, subd. (d).) 

Section 877.6 requires “that the courts review [settlement] agreements made under its aegis to insure that the settlements appropriately balance the . . . statute’s dual objectives” (i.e., providing an “equitable sharing of costs among the parties at fault” and encouraging parties to resolve their disputes by way of settlement).  (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 494 (hereafter, Tech-Bilt).)  In Tech-Bilt, the California Supreme Court set forth the factors to consider when determining whether a settlement was made in good faith.  The Tech-Bilt factors are: (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 pp. 498-501.)  “Practical considerations obviously require that the [trial court’s] evaluation [of the settlement] be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement.”  (Id. at p. 499.) 

“The party asserting the lack of good faith . . . [is] permitted to demonstrate, if he can, that the settlement is so far ‘out of the ballpark’ in relation to [the above] factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of [Section 877.6].  Such a demonstration would establish that the proposed settlement was not a ‘settlement made in good faith’ within the terms of section 877.6.”  (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 499–500.) 

Any party to an action may move for an order determining whether a settlement between the plaintiff and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors was made in good faith.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(1).)  In Tech-Bilt, the court set forth the factors to consider when determining whether a settlement is made in good faith.  The Tech-Bilt factors are: (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.  (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 498-501.) 

The moving party on an unopposed motion for determination of good faith settlement, however, is not required to set forth a full discussion of the Tech-Bilt factors by declaration or affidavit. The moving party on an unopposed motion for determination of good faith settlement need only advance a motion setting forth the basic grounds for the determination of good faith and a declaration setting forth a brief background of the case. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.)

Here, Plaintiff sued Defendants based on an incident which occurred while Plaintiff was performing HVAC services when a pipe exploded resulting in injuries.  Plaintiff’s complaint alleges negligence and premises liability, and in particular, Plaintiff alleges Defendants are liable for hiring, employing, managing, supervising, retaining, and entrusting J&E and its employees to work at the subject property. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants negligently and carelessly owned, used, constructed, inspected, repaired, monitored, and/or maintained the property and in doing so, exposed Plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of harm.  Defendants dispute liability based upon clearly established California law -- that a contractor’s employee may not hold a landowner liable for an injury caused by a contractor under Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 689, 702.  Despite disputed liability Defendants have has settled with Plaintiff. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

As the motion is uncontested and the evidence before the Court suggests that Defendants agreed to settle with Plaintiff without any collusion, fraud, or other improper conduct, the Court grants the motion, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for determination of good faith settlement per Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6.

Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.