Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV07598, Date: 2025-03-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV07598    Hearing Date: March 5, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:              Defendants Joseph O’Toole and Breanna O’Toole, as trustees of the O’Toole Family Trust

RESPONDING PARTIES:    Defendants Thomas C. Amalfitano, as trustee of the Thomas C. Amalfitano Inter Vivos Trust, Robert W. Nizich, individually and as trustee of The Nizich Family Living Trust, and Darin L. Nizich, individually and as trustee of The Nizich Family Living Trust

Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

DISCUSSION

Settling defendants Joseph O’Toole and Breanna O’Toole, as trustees of the O’Toole Family Trust (“Settling Defendants”)[1] move the court for an order determining that the settlement between Settling Defendants, on the one hand, and plaintiffs Carolina Carcano, Carlos Hernandez, Jose Hernandez, Jonathan Hernandez, Janel Hernandez, and Sebastian Hernandez, by and through his guardian ad litem (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on the other hand, was made in good faith pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6. 

On noticed motion, “[a]ny party to an action wherein 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 . . . and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors . . . .”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(1).)  “The factors to be taken into account in the determination of whether a settlement is in ‘good faith’ include: a rough approximation of the plaintiff’s 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 if found liable after a trial.  [Citation.]  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 at injuring the interests of nonsettling defendants.  [Citation.]  The Tech-Bilt factors are nonexhaustive and ‘may not apply in all cases.’”  (Dole Food Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 894, 909 [internal citations omitted].)  “The determination as to whether a settlement is in good faith is a matter left to the discretion of the trial court [citations], with the party asserting the lack of good faith having the burden of proof on that issue.”  (Ibid. [internal citations omitted]; Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).)

Plaintiffs and Settling Defendants have agreed to settle this action for the amount of $150,000, inclusive of attorney’s fees and/or court costs in exchange for a full release of all claims relating to the alleged incident.  (Babian Decl., ¶ 6.)  Non-settling defendants Thomas C. Amalfitano, as trustee of the Thomas C. Amalfitano Inter Vivos Trust, Robert W. Nizich, individually and as trustee of The Nizich Family Living Trust, and Darin L. Nizich, individually and as trustee of The Nizich Family Living Trust (“Non-Settling Defendants”) have opposed Settling Defendants’ motion, contending that the settlement amount is not in good faith.

The court finds that (1) the settlement entered into by and between Plaintiffs and Settling Defendant satisfies the Tech-Bilt factors, and (2) Non-Settling Defendants, as the parties asserting the lack of good faith, have not met their burden of demonstrating 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.”  (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499-500; Code Civ. Proc., §¿877.6, subd. (d).) 

First, Non-Settling Defendants have argued that the settlement “does not represent an equitable sharing of costs under the facts of this case[,]” including because Non-Settling Defendants contend that most of Plaintiffs’ claims arose after Non-Settling Defendants sold the subject property to Settling Defendants.  (Opp., pp. 5:10-11, 3:11-14.)  However, Non-Settling Defendants did not show that the settlement amount of $150,000—in light of the fact that Settling Defendants have shown that, in this breach of warranty of habitability action, none of the Plaintiffs sought medical treatment and only one of the Plaintiffs advanced a claim for loss of earnings—is “so far out of the ballpark” as to be inconsistent with the objectives of section 877.6.  (Babian Decl., ¶ 3.)  Moreover, Non-Settling Defendants have not shown that they can be held liable for conduct that occurred after they sold the property to Settling Defendants in 2022, such that they have not adequately explained how the settlement will result in unfairness on the ground that “Plaintiffs admit they are not advancing any allegations in this lawsuit against [the [Non-Settling] Defendants] for anything that occurred during their ownership of the property.”  (Opp., p. 5:13-16.)    

Second, in evaluating the amount of the settlement, the court (1) has considered that Settling Defendants dispute their liability but wish to settle this action to avoid incurring additional costs of litigation, (2) has considered that Plaintiffs did not seek medical treatment for the injuries, and only one of Plaintiffs has claimed loss of earnings, (3) has considered that the $150,000 amount includes Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs, and (4) recognizes “that a settlor should pay less in settlement than if found liable after a trial.”  (Babain Decl.,¶¶ 2-4; Dole Food Co., Inc., supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at p. 909.)

Third, the court finds that Settling Defendants have shown that (1) the settlement was reached as a result of arm’s-length negotiations following mediation between the parties, and   (2) “there was no collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct [between the parties] to make [Non-Settling Defendants] pay more than their fair share.”  (Babain Decl., ¶¶ 7-8.)

Thus, the court finds that Non-Settling Defendants have not met their burden to demonstrate that the settlement “is so far ‘out of the ballpark’ in relation to [the Tech-Bilt] factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §§¿877, 877.6, subd. (d); Tech-Bilt, Inc., supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 499-500.)  The court therefore finds that the settlement by and between Plaintiffs and Settling Defendants was made in good faith and grants Settling Defendants’ motion.

ORDER

            The court grants defendants Joseph O’Toole and Breanna O’Toole, as trustees of the O’Toole Family Trust’s motion for determination of good faith settlement.

            The court finds that the settlement entered into by plaintiffs Carolina Carcano, Carlos Hernandez, Jose Hernandez, Jonathan Hernandez, Janel Hernandez, and Sebastian Hernandez, by and through his guardian ad litem, and defendants Joseph O’Toole and Breanna O’Toole, as trustees of the O’Toole Family Trust, is in good faith within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (a).  

The court orders that all other joint tortfeasors or co-obligors are barred from any further claims against defendants Joseph O’Toole and Breanna O’Toole, as trustees of the O’Toole Family Trust, or equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.  (Code Civ. Proc., §¿877.6, subd. (c).)  

            The court orders defendants Joseph O’Toole and Breanna O’Toole, as trustees of the O’Toole Family Trust, to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  March 5, 2025

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court