Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV00970, Date: 2024-03-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CMCV00970 Hearing Date: March 5, 2024 Dept: A
23CMCV00970 John Shelton, Jr. v. City of Compton, Martin
Guevara, Jr.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
The
complaint alleges that Defendant, Martin Guevara, Jr. (“Guevara”), while
driving his vehicle, struck Plaintiff, John Shelton, Jr. who was crossing the
street on foot through a crosswalk. Plaintiff, through his Guardian ad Litem,
John Shelton, alleges claims for discrimination under the Unruh Civil Rights
Act, dangerous condition of public property, product liability arising from an
allegedly defective crosswalk button, and negligence.
Defendant,
City of Compton (“City”) filed a cross-complaint against Guevara and Elias Jose
Hernandez (“Hernandez”) for indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief. Cross-Defendants
have not appeared in this action.
Plaintiff
has since amended the complaint to include as defendants, Elias Jose Hernandez
(Doe 1), Yunex, LLC (Doe 2), and Siemens Mobility, Inc., (Doe 3), none of whom have
appeared in this action.
Plaintiff
settled with Defendant Guevara, for the limits of his insurance policy ($15,000).
Defendant City opposes the motion on grounds Plaintiff has not met his burden
of showing that the motion was made in good faith. Alternatively, the City
requests a continuance to conduct discovery of the settlor’s financial
condition. Plaintiff did not file a reply brief.
II.
LEGAL STANDARDS
Civil Procedure section 877.6 states that
“[a]ny party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are
joint tortfeasors … shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of good faith
of a settlement” entered into by the plaintiff and one or more alleged
tortfeasors. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 877.6.) Once there is a showing made
by the settlor of the settlement, the burden of proof on the issue of good
faith shifts to the nonsettlor who asserts that the settlement was not made in
good faith. (City
of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d
1251, 1261–1262.)
In exercising its broad discretion, the
court considers a number of non-exhaustive factors to make its determination
which include: an approximation of plaintiff’s total recovery and settlor’s
proportionate liability; the amount paid in settlement; the recognition that
the settlor should pay less in settlement; the allocation of the settlement
proceeds; the settlor’s financial condition and insurance policy limits;
evidence of collusion, fraud or tortious conduct between the settlor and
plaintiff; and whether the settlement is within the reasonable range of the
settlor’s share of liability. (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499; Cahill
v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th
939, 957.) The court must avoid “rigid” application of
the factors since “all that can be expected is an estimate, not a definitive
conclusion." (North County Contractor's Assn. v. Touchstone Ins. Services (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1090.)
Practical considerations “obviously require that the evaluation be made on the
basis of information available at the time of settlement.”) (Dole
Food Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th
894, 909.)
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has demonstrated that the
settlement was made in good faith as it his ability to contribute based on Guevara’s
“proportional share” of liability is constrained by the limits of his insurance
policy. (Tim Donahue decl. Ex. 2.) Guevara declares he has no other insurance
coverage. (Martin Guevara, Jr., decl., Ex.3.). The settlement resulted from arms-length
negotiation.
The burden of proof that the settlement
was not made in good shifts to the City by demonstrating that the settlement is
“out of the ballpark” of the settling party’s share of liability. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 877.6 subd. (d); Tech-Bilt,
Inc. at 501.) However, regardless of
the settlor’s share of liability and Plaintiff’s approximate total recovery, a
settlor’s financial condition is a material factor for consideration. (County
of Los Angeles v. Guerrero (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1149,
1157 “[E]ven where the claimant's damages are
obviously great, and the liability therefor certain, a disproportionately low
settlement figure is often reasonable in the case of a relatively insolvent,
and uninsured, or underinsured, joint tortfeasor.’"].)
As City observes, however, Guerrero
is materially distinguishable in that Guevara has not yet been deposed, and
“discovery in its infancy.” (Opp. 6:4-7.)
The court has discretion to continue the
hearing where the opposing party has not conducted discovery on any factor
placed in issue by the settling party. (City
of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192
Cal.App.3d 1251, 1265. In Grand Terrace, the trial
court erred when it considered only the insurance policy limits and amount of
settlement and denied the request to continue the hearing to permit further
discovery. (Grand
Terrace at 1257.)
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the hearing on the motion is
continued to