Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: BC697068, Date: 2024-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC697068    Hearing Date: May 30, 2024    Dept: K

Defendant Ferreira Construction Co., Inc.’s unopposed Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.

Background[1]  

Plaintiff Kyle Olsen (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

On or about May 9, 2017, Plaintiff sustained injuries after his vehicle collided with an X-Lite guardrail end terminal that bordered I-10.

On March 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Valmont Industries, Inc. (“VII”), Valmont Highway, Armorflex International Limited (“Armorflex”), Lindsay Corporation (“Lindsay Corp.”), Lindsay Transportation Solution Sales & Service LLC (“Lindsay TSSS”), Ferreira Construction Co., Inc. (“Ferreira”), State of California (“CalTrans”) and Does 1-50 for:

1.                  Negligence and Negligence Per Se

2.                  Strict Liability

3.                  Negligence

4.                  Negligence

On May 18, 2018, Ferreira filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Statewide Traffic Safety and Signs Inc. and Roes 1-50 for:

1.                  Contribution

2.                  Declaratory Relief

3.                  Equitable Indemnity

4.                  Implied Indemnity

On June 20, 2018, this case was transferred from Department 3 of the Personal Injury Court to this instant department.

On August 27, 2018, CalTrans filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against VII, Valmont Highway, Armorflex, Lindsay Corp., Lindsay TSSS, Ferreira, Powell Constructors Inc (“Powell”) and Roes 1-50 for:

1.                  Equitable Indemnity

2.                  Express Indemnity

On November 19, 2018, Powell filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Ferreira and Moes 1-10 for:

1.                  Breach of Contract

2.                  Express Indemnity

3.                  Equitable Indemnity

4.                  Equitable Apportionment

5.                  Implied Contractual Indemnity

6.                  Declaratory Relief

On November 14, 2022, Ferreira dismissed its cross-complaint, without prejudice.

On August 31, 2023, the parties filed a “Stipulation Pursuant to CCP 583.330 to Extend the Time to Bring Matter to Trial,” extending the trial deadline up to and including June 17, 2024.

On May 10, 2024, the parties filed a “Stipulation Pursuant to CCP 583.330,” extending the trial deadline up to and including November 1, 2024.

A Trial Setting Conference is set for May 28, 2024 in Department 89 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

A Status Conference Re: 5-Year Statute Date is set for June 6, 2024 in Department 1 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

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 the 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.)

Discussion

Ferreira moves the court for an orders determining that the settlement between Plaintiff, Ferreira, CalTrans and Powell is a good faith settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 877 and 877.6 and barring all present and future claims, actions and prosecutions of any complaints or cross-complaints by any party for equitable or implied comparative contribution, equitable or implied partial comparative contribution, or equitable or implied partial comparative indemnity against Ferreira, CalTrans and Powell (collectively, “Construction Defendants”) by any joint tortfeasor or co-obligor pertaining to this matter.

Merits

The motion is unopposed; [2] in this situation, it is enough for Ferreira 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.)

Ferriera’s motion meets this lower threshold.

The motion provides the requisite “brief background of the case.” The motion recites that the settlement was entered into in good faith and addresses the Tech-Bilt factors. The terms of the settlement are as follows: (1) Construction Defendants will pay Plaintiff $9,250,000.00, contingent upon approval of this instant motion, (2) each party will bear its own attorney’s fees and costs, (3) Plaintiff will be responsible for any liens, release Construction Defendants from unknown and future claims and will dismiss Construction Defendants with prejudice and (4) each Construction Defendant will dismiss any cross-claims it may have against Plaintiff or any of the other defendants, and waive any future claims of indemnity or contribution against Plaintiff, the Construction Defendants and/or the Lindsay Defendants (referred to as “Products Defendants”). (Ulloa Decl., ¶¶ 11 and 12).

This case involves an automobile accident involving Plaintiff, who, at approximately 2:20 a.m. on the morning of May 9, 2017, was driving his Silver Chevy Silverado Truck on the I-10 eastbound near the City of Pomona. (Id., ¶ 2). Plaintiff asserts that he fell asleep and that his truck veered off the highway near the Fairplex Drive offramp. (Id.) Plaintiff drove up an embankment and hit the terminus portion of the X-Lite Guardrail system at a negative 7-10 degree angle. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that the terminus portion of the X-Lite system failed to telescope as it was designed to do and pierced the vehicle’s driver’s compartment, striking him in the right groin area and piercing his right leg and buttocks. (Id., ¶ 3). The guardrail passed through the bottom of the driver’s side backrest and exited out the back of the truck’s cab. (Id.)

Ferriera asserts that Plaintiff’s allegations in this case can be divided into (1) a products liability claim based on defect theories against the Products Defendants who were involved in the design, manufacture, and sale of the guardrail system and (2) a negligence claim against the Construction Defendants, which includes the end user and installers of the guardrail system. (Id., ¶ 4).

On January 24, 2024, the Construction Defendants and Plaintiff mediated this matter before the Hon. Cesar Sarmiento (Ret.) (“Sarmiento”).[3] Sarmiento produced a Mediator’s Settlement Proposal, which the Construction Defendants and Plaintiff approved. (Id., ¶ 10, Exh. B.) The parties, including Plaintiff and all Defendants, have exchanged comprehensive written discovery and conducted depositions of pertinent witnesses. (Id., ¶ 14).

The court determines that the settlement entered into between Plaintiff and the Construction Defendants was made in good faith. Thus, the unopposed motion is granted.