Judge: Randy Rhodes, Case: 20CHCV00404, Date: 2022-12-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20CHCV00404 Hearing Date: December 13, 2022 Dept: F51
Dept. F-51
Date: 12/13/22
Case #20CHCV00404
MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH
SETTLEMENT
Motion Filed: 11/8/22
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff BDPMVM, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company (“Moving Defendant”)
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Danekqua Brown, Veora
Howell, Melissa Enriquez, Jaden Santana, Jasmine Estrada, and Saul Camarena;
and Defendants/Cross-Complainants Pavilion Mountain View LLC, EMP III, Inc.
(dba Alpha Property Management Inc.), and i.Asset Management, Inc.
NOTICE: OK
RELIEF REQUESTED: An order finding the settlement entered
between all parties to be in good faith pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 877.6.
RECOMMENDED RULING: The motion is granted.
Moving Defendant is reminded to review the 5/3/19
First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When
e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which
are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19
First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil
(particularly bookmarking declarations and exhibits). (CRC 3.1110(f)(4).) Failure
to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers being
rejected, matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so
documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents
not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.
BACKGROUND
On 7/13/20, Plaintiffs filed
their complaint against Defendants, alleging 14 causes of actions arising out
of Plaintiffs’ tenancy at an apartment complex owned and managed by Defendants.
On 10/22/20, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint (“FAC”), alleging
the same 14 causes of action against the same defendants. On 7/15/21,
Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint (“SAC”), alleging the same 14
causes of action against the same defendants.
Plaintiffs allege improper conditions on the property,
including insufficient water pressure and plumbing fixtures, leaks causing mold
and moisture, faulty electrical systems interfering with appliance use and
causing black outs, inoperable heating and air conditioning systems, debris
from a fallen retainer wall that limits available parking, insect infestation,
and overall poor maintenance of the units and common areas. Plaintiffs
additionally allege retaliatory threats of eviction based on false claims of
non-payment of rent following complaints, and age and disability discrimination
against Plaintiff Howell.
On 7/22/22, the parties
entered into the settlement agreement to, inter alia, dismiss the entire action
in exchange for the settlement amount of $425,000.00. On 11/8/22, Defendant
BDPMVM, LLC filed the instant motion for determination of good faith
settlement. No opposition has been filed to date.
ANALYSIS
In determining whether a settlement was entered in
good faith pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, the
Court considers several factors: (1) A rough approximation of the plaintiff’s
total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability; (2) The amount paid
in settlement; (3) A recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement
than if found liable at trial; (4) The allocation of the settlement proceeds
among the plaintiffs; (5) The settlor’s financial condition and insurance
policy limits, if any; and (6) Evidence of any collusion, fraud, tortious
conduct between the settlor and the plaintiff aimed at making the non-settling
parties pay more than their fair share. (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde
& Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.)
However, the Court need only weigh the Tech-Bilt
factors when the good faith nature of the settlement is disputed, whereas “when
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.” (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192
Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.)
Here, the terms of the settlement provide, inter alia,
that Plaintiffs agree to dismiss the entire action, with prejudice, in exchange
for the settlement amount of $425,000.00, to be divided into four equal shares
across the four households which encompass all plaintiffs and claimants.
(Def.’s Mot., 4:21–25.) The parties also agreed to waive all attorney fees and
costs in connection with the litigation, and to waive the right to assert any
future causes of action arising from the facts of this action. (Id.,
5:7–10.)
Moving Defendant maintains that the settlement
satisfies each Tech-Bilt factor, and that “there is no reasonable theory of liability
against Defendants” in this action. (Id., 6:17–20.) Moving Defendant
argues that “the settlement figure far exceeds Defendants’ proportionate
liability, as no credible evidence exists that would result in liability being
assessed against them for an amount greater than the settlement amount.” (Id.,
6:20–22.) Moving Defendant contends that the settlement between the parties
concerns allegations prior to November 20, 2020, and that “any prospective
action against the non-settling entities (the new owner and manager) would only
entail new claims and damages” not involving the settling defendants. (Id.,
6:23–28.)
Moving Defendant also maintains that while Defendants
are not liable to Plaintiffs, the settlement amount is nevertheless lower than
it would be if Defendants were found liable at trial. (Id., 7:5–11.)
Moving Defendant also contends that “the good faith settlement monies will
ultimately result in an offset among all joint tortfeasors.” (Id.,
7:27–28.)
Finally, Moving Defendant represents that the
agreed-upon settlement is within the settlors’ insurance policy limits, and
that the settlement was reached through negotiations where all settling parties
were represented by competent counsel before mediator Peter J. Searle, Esq. of
Judicate West. (Id., 8:1–7; Decl. of Loni Harada-Orosz, ¶ 11.)
The above facts, stated in the instant motion, are
accompanied by a declaration of Moving Defendant’s attorney attesting thereto.
Therefore, the unopposed motion satisfies the standard set forth in Grand
Terrace. (192 Cal.App.3d at 1261.)
Accordingly, the Court finds the settlement
entered between all parties to be in good faith pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 877.6.
CONCLUSION
The motion is granted.