Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 22PSCV00025, Date: 2022-08-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22PSCV00025 Hearing Date: August 24, 2022 Dept: O
Defendants Mengxue Zho aka Mang Xue Zhao’s, Dong Sun aka
Dong J. Sun aka Sun Dong’s and AD & MM, Inc.’s unopposed Motion for
Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.
Background
Plaintiff National Commercial Recovery, Inc. dba Blair Smith and Associates (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:
On or
about November 1, 2018, Yichen Li aka Yi Chen Li (“Li”) entered into a 3-year
written lease with Plaintiff’s assignor, Price RH Property, LLC (“Assignor”)
for the commercial property located at 18188 Colima Rd., Rowland Heights, CA
91748 (“Property”). On or about August 1, 2019, Li assigned the lease to
Mengxue Zhao (“Zhao”) for the remainder of the term. The assignment agreement
provides that Li remains obligated under the terms of the lease notwithstanding
the assignment. Zhao failed to pay rent.
On February 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants Zhao, Dong Sun aka Dong J. Sun aka Sun Dong (“Sun”), AD & MM, Inc. (“AD & MM”), Li and Does 1-10 for:
1.
Breach of Written Lease
2.
Enforcement of Claim Against Defendant’s Community
Property Interest in Real Property Held By Spouse
The Final Status Conference is set for August 29, 2023. Trial is set for September 12, 2023.
Legal Standard
“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-obligators, upon giving notice in the manner provided in subdivision (b) of Section 1005 . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(1).)
“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (c).)
“[T]he intent and policies underlying section 877.6 require that a number of factors be taken into account including a rough approximation of plaintiffs’ 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. Finally, practical considerations obviously require that the evaluation be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement.” (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.) Additionally, “the trial court’s good faith determination must take into account the settling tortfeasor’s potential liability for indemnity to a cotortfeasor, as well as then settling tortfeasor’s potential liability to the plaintiff.” (Far West Financial Corp. v. D&S Co. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 796, 816, fn. 16.) “If section 877.6 is to serve the ends of justice, it must prevent a party from purchasing protection from its indemnification obligation at bargain-basement prices.” (Long Beach Memorial Medical Center v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 865, 876.)
The moving party’s initial evidentiary burden depends on whether the good faith of the settlement is being contested. If the nonsettling defendants do not oppose the motion on the good faith issue, a “barebones” motion which sets forth the grounds of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case, is sufficient. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.)
When a motion for determination of good faith settlement is contested, however, the moving party must make a more specific showing under the Tech-Bilt factors. (Id. at 1261-62.) Such a showing may be made either in the original moving papers or in counter-declarations filed after the nonsettling defendants have filed an opposition challenging good faith of the settlement. (Id. at 1262.) Where good faith is contested, the showing requires competent evidence in support of “good faith.” (Greshko v. County of Los Angeles (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 822, 834.)
“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 non-settlor who asserts that the settlement was not made in good faith.” (City of Grand Terrace, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d at 1262; Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).)
Discussion
Zhao, Sun and AD & MM move the court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6, for a determination that the settlement they reached with Plaintiff was made in good faith and that any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor is barred from asserting any further claims against them for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.
Procedural Defects
Preliminarily, Zhao, Sun and AD & MM failed to comply with California Rules of Court Rule 3.1382 (i.e., “[a] motion or application for determination of good faith settlement may include a request to dismiss a pleading or a portion of a pleading. The notice of motion or application for determination of good faith settlement must list each party and pleading or portion of pleading affected by the settlement and the date on which the affected pleading was filed”).
Merits
No non-settling defendant has objected to the settlement. In this situation, it is enough for a settling defendant to make a “barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case…” (City of Grand Terrace, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d at 1261.)
The instant motion meets this lower threshold. The motion is granted.