Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21PSCV00901, Date: 2023-11-08 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 a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 21PSCV00901    Hearing Date: November 8, 2023    Dept: G

Defendant B.R. Building Resources Company’s Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant B.R. Building Resources Company’s Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract action arising from a construction project. In May 2017, Plaintiff Brian Vosberg entered into a written agreement with Defendant B.R. Building Resources Company (B.R.) in which B.R. agreed to provide demolition, design, and construction services for a construction project that involved a commercial building in Glendora. Vosberg alleges B.R.’s services were inadequate and resulted in project delays that damaged Vosberg financially.

On November 4, 2021, Vosberg, in his capacity as a trustee of the Vosberg Family Trust, filed a complaint against B.R. and Does 1-200, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract, (2) negligence, (3) unfair business practices, and (4) violation of contractors license laws.

On September 18, 2023, B.R. filed a notice of settlement and the present motion. A hearing on the motion is set for November 8.

ANALYSIS

B.R. moves for a determination of good faith settlement with Vosberg. 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 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 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

In this case, the court finds B.R.’s application adequately describes the background of this case. The court also finds the motion provides sufficient reasoning as to why the settlement was reached in good faith with B.R.’s motion stating a settlement amount of $600,000 is not disproportionate to the potential liability in this matter. B.R. also states there is no evidence of any collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed at injuring the interests of non-settling parties.

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 B.R.’s motion for a determination of good faith settlement.