Judge Olivia Rosales, Case 21STCV24604 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 21STCV24604, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV24604 Hearing Date: December 6, 2022 Dept: SEC

SOLARES v. CITY OF NORWALK, et al.

CASE NO.: 21STCV24604 consolidated with 21STCV39337 and 21STCV14685

HEARING: 7/5/22 @ 9:30 AM

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Herman Weissker Power, Inc.’s motion to oppose defendant Adriana Serrano’s application for determination of good faith settlement is CONTINUED for 120 days to April 4, 2022, at 10:30 a.m. in Department C.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Herman Weissker Power, Inc. moves to challenge Defendant Serrano’s application for good faith determination pursuant to CCP § 877.6.

This is a consolidated action involving three actions: 1) Carina Solares v. Lexie
Granados, et al. (Case No. 21STCV4604 – LEAD case); 2) Adriana Serrano v. Lexie Granados, et al. (Case No. 21STCV39337); and 3) Lexie Granados v. Adriana Serrano (Case No. 21STCV14685).

The operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleges that on October 16, 2020, at around 11:08 p.m., Plaintiff Carina Solares was a passenger in a vehicle operated by Defendant Adriana Serrano when their vehicle collided with Defendant Lexie Granados at an intersection. (SAC, ¶¶ 1-3.) “At that time, Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection of Alondra Boulevard and Pioneer Boulevard on a green light. At the same time, Granados’ vehicle entered the same intersection also on a green light.” (SAC, ¶ 3.) “While both Plaintiff’s vehicle and Granados’ vehicle were in the intersection, the traffic signals and street lights at the intersection suddenly turned off, and a collision occurred between Plaintiff’s and Granados’ vehicle.” (Id., ¶ 4.) “At that time, the traffic signals were not blinking red, nor were there any posted signs prior to entering the intersection regarding a power outage. Contrary, there had been a planned power outage at the intersection of Alondra Boulevard and Pioneer Boulevard to occur between 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.” (Id., ¶ 4.) “The traffic signals and streetlights came back on around 11:38 p.m.” (Id., ¶ 5.) Based thereon, the SAC asserts causes of action for:

1. Negligence

2. Dangerous Condition

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 may seek a judicial determination that a settlement was made in good faith; such a determination bars any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault. The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.” (CCP § 877.6 (a), (c)-(d).)

The intent and policies underlying § 877.6 require that a number of factors be taken into account including a rough approximation of plaintiff’s total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial. Other relevant considerations include the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants, as well as the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants. (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 498-501.)

Finally, practical considerations obviously require that the evaluation be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement. A defendant's settlement figure must not be “grossly disproportionate” to what a reasonable person, at the time of the settlement, would estimate the settling defendant's liability to be. The party asserting the lack of good faith has the burden of proof and should be permitted to demonstrate, if he 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. Such a demonstration would establish that the proposed settlement was not a settlement made in good faith within the terms of CCP 877.6. (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 498-501.)

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. (CCP § 877.6(c).)

This court ruled at the prior demurrer hearing that this action is only allowed to proceed against the City on the theory that the street lights were simultaneously green for both vehicles at the intersection. (Id., ¶ 3.) “If Plaintiff is alleging that only her light was green and Granados’s light was red, then this theory fails. If Plaintiff was in the middle of the intersection on a green light, then Granados should have been stopped at the intersection on her red light. If the traffic signals suddenly shut off at the precise moment Plaintiff was in the middle of the intersection, then Granados, whose vehicle should have been stopped at a red light, ‘shall stop at the intersection, and may proceed with caution when it is safe to do so.’ (Veh. Code § 21800(d)(1); see Cerna v. City of Oakland (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1340, 1348 - “Third party conduct, by itself, unrelated to the condition of the property, does not constitute a dangerous condition for which a public entity may be held liable.”) Such a scenario does not create a dangerous condition for which City is liable, and Plaintiff failed to cite any case authorities supporting this theory. Plaintiff’s claim therefore lies with Granados, and not the City.” (7/5/22 Minute Order.) This is the sole theory that would connect Defendants Herman Weissker Power, Inc. and Southern California Edison to this action.

Plaintiff Solares (a passenger) has now settled with Defendant Serrano (the driver) for $20,000.00.

However, Defendant Southern California Edison has not yet answered the complaint. This case is not at issue and discovery has only recently commenced. Aside from their own discovery responses, neither Solares nor Serrano have submitted any independent evidence establishing that the lights were malfunctioning, as alleged in the SAC. If there was no malfunctioning light, then the collision was caused by driver error (either by Defendant Serrano or Defendant Granados, or both).

Thus, the court finds that Serrano failed to submit sufficient evidence of her proportionate liability under both the scenario that the lights were malfunctioning and under the scenario that the collision was caused by driver error. In addition, although Serrano contends that she has submitted her policy limits, no discovery has been conducted regarding Serrano’s financial condition. Further, although Solares identified a total of $24,997.21 in medical treatment (Mendoza Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. B – Nos. 6.4-6.5, 7.1-8.1), it is unclear if this sum represents Solares’s total damages.

Accordingly, lacking further information, this court cannot determine that the settlement was made in good faith. Accordingly, the motion is CONTINUED for 120 days to allow the parties to conduct further discovery.