Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 19STCV36731, Date: 2023-02-06 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 19STCV36731    Hearing Date: February 6, 2023    Dept: G

Defendants Guy F. Atkinson Construction, LLC and State of California Department of Transportation’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Guy F. Atkinson Construction, LLC and State of California Department of Transportation’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is a wrongful death action arising from an automobile accident on Interstate 10 (I-10). On January 5, 2019, Jesus Angel Reyes Corrales (Reyes) was driving westbound on I-10 in the fourth lane with Grisol Lupita Ramirez (Ramirez) as a passenger. As a result of an allegedly dangerous condition that resulted in mud, gravel, and rocks on the roadway, Reyes lost control of the vehicle, collided with the concrete center median, and came to a stop in the second lane. After observing smoke from the vehicle’s engine, Reyes and Ramirez exited the vehicle. Around the same time, Michael Minh Quang Dinh (Dinh) was driving in the second lane. After Dinh attempted to stop to avoid a collision, the same allegedly dangerous condition caused Dinh to lose control of the vehicle and hit Ramirez. Ramirez sustained serious injuries and died the same day.

On October 15, 2019, Ramirez’s parents, Jose Ramirez and Marisol Reyes (collectively, Plaintiffs), filed a complaint against the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Dinh, Reyes, and Does 1-1,000, alleging the following causes of action: (1)¿negligence – dangerous conditions of public property (against Defendant and Does 500-1,000), (2) negligence – failure to warn of a dangerous condition (against Defendant and Does 500-1,000), and (3) negligence – wrongful death (against all defendants).

On January 7, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to the complaint, substituting Doe 500 with Guy F. Atkinson Construction, LLC (Guy F. Atkinson Construction.)

On January 12, 2023, Caltrans and Guy F. Atkinson Construction (collectively, Defendants) filed the present motion. A hearing on the motion is set for February 6. A hearing for an order to seal settlement with Plaintiffs is set for March 9. Also, a motion for summary judgment is set for April 6, a final status conference is set for January 11, 2024, and a jury trial is set January 23.

ANALYSIS

Defendants  move for a determination of good faith settlement with Plaintiffs. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS the motion.

Legal Standard

In a noticed motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (a)(1), “[a]ny 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.” “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (c).)

In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499 (Tech-Bilt), the supreme court identified factors courts consider when determining if a settlement is in good faith under section 877.6. However, when the good faith nature of a settlement is uncontested, the court need not consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (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.” (Ibid.)

Discussion

Here, the court finds that the motion describes the background of this case. (Marvisi Decl., ¶ 3-6.) The court also finds the motion provides sufficient reasoning as to why the settlement was reached in good faith, with Defendants recognizing settlement now results in a lower amount than could be awarded at trial and avoids attorney fees, costs, and expenses of additional litigation. (Marvisi Decl., ¶ 13.) Defendants also state the settlement is free of any collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed at injuring the interests of non-settling parties. (Marvisi Decl., ¶ 15.)

Accordingly, because the court is not in receipt of any timely opposition and the motion, provides sufficient grounds for a good faith determination, it is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for a determination of good faith settlement.