Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 19STCV03420, Date: 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling

INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:

1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.

2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and

3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.

If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on. 

TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/ui/main.aspx?casetype=civil

Case Number: 19STCV03420    Hearing Date: January 9, 2023    Dept: A

19STCV03420 Jonathan Rojas v. Orion Plastics Corporation, et al.

Monday, January 9, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

The complaint alleges that on February 3, 2017, Plaintiff, Jonathan Rojas, sustained injury while working at Defendant, Orion Plastics Corporation’s (“Orion”) facilities. Plaintiff alleges that he was working at a machine winding newly made, plastic sheets onto cardboard tubes when the machine jammed. Plaintiff reached into the machine to remove the jam as instructed by his supervisor, which caused injury when the equipment caught Plaintiff’s arm. Plaintiff alleges claims for negligence, products liability and related warranty claims against Gloucester Engineering, Co., Inc., and BW PTI Holdings (Doe 1), and negligent hiring, supervision, retention, and training against Orion.

On July 14, 2020, the Hon. Maurice Leiter entered judgment in favor of Orion after granting Orion’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff appealed the judgment on September 2, 2020, and the matter is still pending. On October 13, 2020, Judge Leiter dismissed Defendant, Davis-Standard, LLC, after granting its Motion to Quash for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. The remaining defendants are the Settlors, Gloucester Engineering Co., Inc., and BW PTI Holdings. The court’s file does not reflect that any cross-complaints were filed.

Settlors settled with Plaintiff for an undisclosed amount contained in a settlement agreement lodged with the court under seal because the agreement is confidential.   

Settlors argue that the basis for liability against them was that Settlors failed to incorporate certain safeguards in the equipment that would have prevented Plaintiff’s injury. Settlors denied all of Plaintiff’s claims and raised valid defenses to Plaintiff’s claim. Although Settlors disputed liability, Settlors and Plaintiff reached settlement after mediation. Settlement was reached after arms-length negotiations and is not the result of collusion or fraud.

The court’s file does not reflect that an opposition has been filed.

Defendants’ “Notice of Lodging Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release” filed November 15, 2022, is not sufficient to permit sealing of records. A record must not be filed under seal without a court order. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551 [“The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties."]; Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1282 ["We have been unable to find any appellate court decision which construes Public Ker to permit sealing of court documents merely upon the agreement of the parties without a specific showing of serious injury."].

            To seal a record, a motion or application must be made accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient for the court to make the required express findings to justify sealing record. Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.551 subd. (b); Rule 2.550. Pending the determination of the motion, the lodged record will be conditionally under seal. Id., Rule 2.551 subd. (b)(4).

            Defendants’ motion for determination of good faith settlement does not discuss the amount and terms of settlement necessary for the court’s determination. Along with all other requirements for filing a motion to seal, counsel is ordered to comply with the requirements for submitting redacted and unredacted versions of the motion, conditionally under seal. Id., Rule 2.551 subd.(b)(5.

            Additionally, settling parties must make the details of the settlement available to nonsettlors and the court. It cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality. Alcal Roofing & Insulation v. Superior Court (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1121, 1127. Counsel for Gloucester avers that the terms of the settlement were given to Orion. Cadigan Declaration, ¶ 6. This is insufficient. All interested parties must be served with the good faith determination motion that includes the unredacted details of settlement. Settling parties can file a redacted version of the good faith motion pending a separate motion to seal.  

      Since settlors seek a good faith determination by noticed motion, notice in the manner provided by Code of Civil Procedure, section § 1005 subd.(b) is required. Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6  subd. (b)(1). This motion lacks a discussion of the settlement as well as the agreement itself which is insufficient to give notice to other parties.