Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case 21STCV14623 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff EQR-Chinatown Gateway LP (“EQR”) is the landlord and owner of a mixed-use real property located at 639 N. Broadway, Los Angeles, CA. On or about November 14, 2014, Defendant Parks BBQ Express, Inc. (Parks BBQ”) agreed to lease a ground floor retail space at Plaintiff’s property. On or about May 31, 2018, Defendant Okiboru LLC (“Okiboru”) assumed the lease from Parks BBQ. After Defendant Okiboru allegedly stopped paying rent, Plaintiff EQR filed the instant action against Okiboru and Parks BBQ for (1) breach of contract and (2) breach of lease guaranty.

Plaintiff has entered into a settlement agreement with the remaining Defendants, Okiboru LLC, Koo Sun Robert Jung, Hyun Woo Park, and Jessica Park. Defendants now move 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 parties to this settlement are Plaintiff EQR-CHINATOWN GATEWAY LP and Defendants Okiboru LLC; Koo Sun Robert Jung; Hyun Woo Park; and Jessica Park (“settling defendants”). The other named Defendants in this action, Parks BBQ Express, Inc. and Park Dae Gam Ne, Inc., have already been dismissed with prejudice. (See Request for Dismissal, 07/25/2022.)

Under the terms of the Settlement, the settling defendants agree to pay the sum of ninety-thousand dollars ($90,000.00) to Plaintiff “as [f]ull and final settlement any and all of the claims alleged against” the settling defendants. (Mtn. 4: 15-16.) The Settlement also states it “is contingent on the court granting the application for good faith settlement or the PARKS BBQ Defendant stipulation to any such application.” (Id. 5: 1-2.)

The party asserting a lack of good faith has the burden of proof on the issue. (See CCP 877.6(d).) Presumably, that task would have rested with Parks BBQ or Park Dae Gam Ne, Inc., the non-settling Defendants. These Defendants have not 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.) The settling defendants have met that standard here. (See Eghbali Decl., generally.) Although not necessary to do so, this court also notes that Plaintiff sought damages of $290,000.00 for back rent and other charges. (See Complaint, prayer.) In proportion, a settlement of $90,000.00 appears reasonable and “within the ballpark” of a good-faith settlement under Tech-Bilt.

Finally, 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.) Defendants ask 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.