Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case Number: 23GDCV02582, Date: 2025-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Rosa Torres alleges that in October of 2023 plaintiff was injured on a construction site of defendant Sinanian Development, Inc. in Glendale. Plaintiff alleges that plaintiff was walking on the public right of way and tripped and fell due to defendant’s construction fencing and gate protruding onto the public walkway in an unsafe and negligent fashion which blocked a portion of the public way.

Defendant Sinanian Development, Inc. has filed a cross-complaint against the City of Glendale and CS Transit Leasing, Inc. for indemnity and contribution, alleging that if cross-complainant is found responsible to plaintiff as a result of the incidents described in plaintiff’s complaint, its liability would be based solely upon a derivative form of liability not resulting from its conduct, and entitle it to complete indemnity from each cross-defendant. The cross-complaint also alleges that if plaintiff sustained any damages, such damages were caused and contributed to by the negligent, reckless, careless and unlawful acts of cross-defendants, and cross-complainant is entitled to have the quantum of negligence of cross-defendants determined by this court, and cross-defendants should be required to reimburse cross-complainant for any payments it is required to make to plaintiff in excess of its proportional share.

CS Transit, through its participating insurance carrier, will pay to plaintiff the sum of $10,000.00 in exchange for release of all claims with respect to CS Transit’s involvement as it relates to the allegation in the complaint, and agreement to defend, indemnify and hold harmless CS Transit for any current or future claims with respect to the damages alleged in the complaint. Contingent on settlement being confirmed by the court as having been made in good faith.

Settlement reached at arm’s length, after multiple attempts to negotiate settlement between the parties, and involved no coercion, fraud, or tortuous conduct and no intent to injure any of the other parties involved in the lawsuit. [Maranesi Decl., paras. 11-13].

Under CCP section 877.6, a court may approve a settlement by determining it was made in good faith, and such a determination shall bar any other joint tortfeasor from further claims against the settling tortfeasor. CCP section 877.6(d) provides that “The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.”

The trial court enjoys broad discretion in determining whether a settlement was entered in good faith and in allocating potential liability and exposure among joint tortfeasors. Norco Delivery Services v. Owens Corning Fiberglass (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 955, 962. A reviewing court will “assess whether the trial court’s good faith determination is buttressed by any substantial evidence.” Id.

“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.”

“’[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.’ (Torres v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 499, 509 [203 Cal.Rptr. 825].) The party asserting the lack of good faith, who has the burden of proof on that issue (§ 877.6, subd. (d)), 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 section 877.6.”

Here, cross-defendant CS Transit argues that the settlement for $10,000.00 is within the ballpark of a reasonable amount, as CS Transit’s potential liability is attenuated at best as it relates to the facts alleged. It appears from the file that although CS Transit has been named as a cross-defendant in the cross-complaint filed by defendant, cross-complainant and cross-defendant Sinanian Development, Inc. (Sinanian), CS Transit has not been formally named as a defendant by plaintiff.

CS Transit submits a declaration of its Vice President, Lori Gambino, who explains that CS Transit is a contracting company that was retained by Sinanian to deliver fencing to the jobsite where the accident occurred on three occasions, with the last delivery and installation in December of 2022. [Gambino Decl., para. 4-8]. The declaration indicates that all the fencing was installed pursuant to Sinanian’s directions, that CS Transit had no agreement to return to maintain the fence after the installation, so never returned to the jobsite after the deliveries, and that there were no CS Transit employees at the jobsite at the time of the alleged accident. [Gambino Decl., paras. 9-12]. CS Transit argues that given plaintiff’s damages, the settlement amount of $10,000.00 is very reasonable for this cross-defendant.

CS Transit argues that CS Transit and plaintiff understand the risks of trial, and the costs associated with experts, further discovery and arbitration, and the settlement was made to avoid the costs and uncertainty associated with a lengthy trial. CS Transit submits a declaration of its counsel, who indicates that these were the reasons for the settlement, and also indicates that the settlement was reached at arm’s length, after multiple attempts to negotiate settlement between the parties, and involved no coercion, fraud, or intent to injure any of the other parties involved in the lawsuit. [Maranesi Decl., paras. 11-13].

CS Transit fails to address the Tech-Bilt factors of plaintiff’s expected total recovery, and CS Transit’s financial condition, and the matter may be continued to require CS Transit to produce evidence concerning those matters. However, the expected total recovery is supplied by the opposition papers, and there is some authority which recognizes that a party’s financial condition under Tech-Bilt, may be irrelevant where it is shown that the settlement is not disproportionately low. See L.C. Rudd & Son, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 742, 749-750.

“(2) In the alternative, a settling party may give notice of settlement to all parties and to the court, together with an application for determination of good faith settlement and a proposed order. The application shall indicate the settling parties, and the basis, terms, and amount of the settlement. The notice, application, and proposed order shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by personal service. Proof of service shall be filed with the court. Within 25 days of the mailing of the notice, application, and proposed order, or within 20 days of personal service, a nonsettling party may file a notice of motion to contest the good faith of the settlement. If none of the nonsettling parties files a motion within 25 days of mailing of the notice, application, and proposed order, or within 20 days of personal service, the court may approve the settlement. The notice by a nonsettling party shall be given in the manner provided in subdivision (b) of Section 1005. However, this paragraph shall not apply to settlements in which a confidentiality agreement has been entered into regarding the case or the terms of the settlement.”

“(1) 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-obligors, upon giving notice in the manner provided in subdivision (b) of Section 1005. Upon a showing of good cause, the court may shorten the time for giving the required notice to permit the determination of the issue to be made before the commencement of the trial of the action, or before the verdict or judgment if settlement is made after the trial has commenced.”

Sinanian quotes only the alternative provision, and argues that CS Transit has not complied with the procedures for filing an application for good faith settlement, relying on the portion of the statute where no hearing date is noticed. Here, although entitled an application, the document is clearly a noticed motion, designating a reserved hearing date and providing the other parties with notice of the opportunity to formally challenge the good faith of the settlement, which Sinanian clearly has done, addressing the application on its merits. That subdivision does not require personal service. Sinanian’s selective quoting from the statute is borderline misleading to the court, and the application is not denied on this ground.

Sinanian argues that cross-defendant CS Transit has not demonstrated that the settlement is within the ballpark of what CS Transit should settle for, but cites to Tech-Bilt, in which, as set forth above, and in the opposition itself, it was clearly held that the party asserting the lack of good faith has the burden of proof on that issue, and is permitted to demonstrate that the settlement is so far “out of the ballpark” as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute. [Opposition, p. 5, Tech-Bilt, at 500]. That party would be Sinanian here, the party asserting the lack of good faith, not CS Transit.

In any case, Sinanian argues that the application does not set forth a rough approximation of plaintiff’s total recovery. As noted above, that is correct, but the opposition purports to set forth the approximation of total recovery. The opposition indicates that plaintiff in discovery responses has indicated she is claiming injuries to the neck, low back, left hip and left shoulder (a rotator cuff tear), with past medical expenses totaling $38,145.00, with receipt of medical billings from two providers outstanding. [Cloud Decl., para. 5]. Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon recommends treatment including cervical spine injections and disc replacement at a cost of $275,000.00 and lumbar spine micro decompression surgery for a cost of $175,000.00. [Cloud Decl., para 6]. This totals approximately $488,145.00.

Sinanian argues that $10,000.00 is not proportionate to CS Transit’s proportionate liability. Sinanian argues that CS Transit supplied and installed the fencing around the project, and that there are questions of fact as to whether Sinanian directed CS Transit regarding the installation of the fencing, whether installation was completed in a safe and reasonable manner, including whether warning signs regarding the footing of the fence were supplied and placed by CS Transit, which questions are still under investigation during the discovery process. This argument is not supported by any evidence, but is primarily based on what Sinanian expects further discovery to disclose. The declaration submitted is from counsel and does not convey any of the facts concerning CS Transit’s involvement except to state, “Questions of fact are still under investigation during the discovery process, including plaintiff’s deposition… and the PMK depositions of cross-defendants.” [Cloud Decl., para. 4]. Any facts supporting these arguments would likely be within the knowledge of Sinanian employees at this juncture, however, and, in any case, the settlement is to be evaluated based on the facts known at the time of the settlement, which the opposition appears to concede are incomplete as to the moving party.

Sinanian also argues that there are incomplete showings concerning the other Tech Bilt factors, such as the proportionate liability of CS Transit and its financial condition. As discussed above, CS Transit has submitted a declaration of a principal explaining the limited role it played in the condition of the jobsite, and has addressed that Tech-Bilt factor. While it might be helpful to have some information concerning the insurance policy limits and CS Transit’s financial condition, as noted above, it is recognized that where there is not a persuasive disproportionality argument, this factor is ordinarily not required to be addressed.

Overall, the opposition fails to attempt to affirmatively meet the argument that CS Transit’s involvement in the condition of the jobsite was limited and performed according to the instructions of Sinanian, and fails to make any showing that the settlement sum, accepted by plaintiff, evidently through counsel, was not made in good faith, or would be inequitable on recognized grounds, such as that there is some reason to believe the settlement is structured such that it would impose some prejudice to the non-settling parties in pursuing their defense on the merits. The opposition accordingly fails to meet the burden of showing the settlement was not made in good faith. The court finds that the settlement was made in good faith. The application accordingly is granted.

Cross-Defendant CS Transit Leasing, Inc.’s Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED. The Court determines that the settlement entered into by plaintiff Rosa Torres and cross-defendant CS Transit Leasing, Inc. was entered into in good faith. Cross-defendant CS Transit Leasing, Inc. is discharged from all liability on claims for equitable comparative contribution, and/or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault, by other parties, joint tortfeasors, or co-obligors, in this or any other action arising from the same general set of facts.

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances. Department D is now requiring either live or VIDEO appearances, not audio appearances. Please note that in the case of video appearances, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED.