Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case 20STCV47887 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Felipe Mejia Iniguez and Maria G. Mejia filed the instant action against various manufacturers of alleged toxic chemical products. Felipe worked in mannequin manufacturing where he alleged he was exposed to harmful chemical products that caused renal cell carcinoma. Felipe passed away from the cancer after filing this suit; his wife, as his surviving spouse and successor-in-interest, continues the suit on his behalf. The First Amended Complaint also adds Felipe’s adult children as Plaintiffs, and asserts causes of action against the chemical manufacturers for (1) negligence, (2) strict liability – warning defect, (3) strict liability – design defect, (4) fraudulent concealment, (5) breach of implied warranties, and (6) loss of consortium.

Plaintiffs have entered into a settlement agreement with Defendant CHT USA, Inc. Defendant now moves for an order determining the settlement was entered into in good faith. There is no opposition to the motion.

In an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt, a party to that action may file a motion seeking a determination from the court that the settlement between the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors was made in good faith. (CCP § 877.6(a).) The notice of motion or application for good faith determination must list each party and pleading or portion of pleading affected by the settlement and the date on which the affected pleading was filed. (CRC Rule 3.1382.)

The California Supreme Court in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, established the standard for determining whether a settlement was made in good faith. Under Tech-Bilt, the following factors are considered: (1) a rough approximation of plaintiff’s total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (4) a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial; (5) the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants; and (6) the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of the non-settling defendants. (Id. at 498-501.) Additionally, the evaluation must be made based on the information available at the time of settlement. (Id. at 599.)

Where good faith is contested, the moving party must make a sufficient showing of all the Tech-Bilt factors, which can be made in the moving papers or in counter-declarations filed after the nonsettling defendants have filed an opposition. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261-62.) “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.” (Id. at 1262; CCP § 877.6(d).) In other words, the nonsettling defendant should demonstrate “that the settlement is so far ‘out of the ballpark’ in relation to the [Tech-Bilt] factors as to be inconsistent” with a settlement made in good faith. (Id. at 500.)

If the court makes a good faith determination, the court may dismiss the settling party from comparative indemnity claims if the settling party has made such a request at the time of making the good faith motion. (CCP §§ 877, 877.6(c); CRC 3.1382.)

The proposed settlement is entered into by all Plaintiffs and Defendant CHT USA, Inc. The Complaint alleged that Defendant was the “supplier and/or manufacturer” of the chemicals QM 122 and QM 140, exposure to “which caused Decedent’s toxic injuries, occupational diseases, and death.” (FAC ¶ 28.) The parties have agreed to settle this dispute for $35,000.00, contingent upon court approval of this good faith settlement application. (Mullins Decl. ¶ 7.)

The party asserting a lack of good faith has the burden of proof on the issue. (See CCP 877.6(d).) No Defendants have opposed the motion, thus leaving the issue of good faith uncontested. A trial court must only consider the Tech-Bilt factors “when the good faith nature of a settlement is disputed.” (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Ct. (1987) 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1261.) “[W]hen no one objects, the barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is sufficient.” (Id.) Having read and considered the moving papers, the court concludes the settlement is the result of good faith negotiations between the parties and is “within the ballpark” of Defendant’s alleged liability. (See Mullins Decl., generally; Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at 599.)

Finally, in making a good faith determination, the court may dismiss the settling party from comparative indemnity claims if the settling party has made such a request at the time of the motion. (CCP §§ 877, 877.6(c); CRC 3.1382.) Defendant asks the court to do so here; as the motion is unopposed, that request is GRANTED.

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.