Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21STCV14933, Date: 2024-09-30 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: 21STCV14933    Hearing Date: September 30, 2024    Dept: G

Defendant County of Los Angeles’s Motion for Order Determining Good Faith Settlement

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant County of Los Angeles’s Motion for Order Determining Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action arising from an alleged dangerous condition of public property. In January 2021, Plaintiff Richard R. Salazar was driving a motorcycle eastbound on Gladstone Street when Salazar hit a patch of allegedly uneven pavement. Upon doing so, Salazar allegedly lost control of the motorcycle and suffered significant injuries.

On April 20, 2021, Salazar filed a complaint against Defendants City of Citrus (Citrus), the County of Los Angeles (the County), the State of California (the State), Caltrans, and Does 1-100, alleging causes of action for (1) dangerous condition of public property and (2) general negligence.

On April 29, 2021, Salazar and Kristi Salazar filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against the same defendants alleging the same causes of action.

On July 12, 2021, the Salazars dismissed the State and Caltrans from the present action.

On July 29, 2021, the County filed a cross-complaint against the City of Azusa (Azusa) and Roes 1-50, alleging the following causes of action: (1) express indemnity, (2) implied indemnity, (3) equitable indemnity, (4) apportionment of fault/contribution, and (5) declaratory relief.

On August 11, 2021, the Salazars amended the FAC to replace Doe 77 with Azusa Light & Water (Azusa L&W) and Doe 76 with Azusa.

On September 7, 2022, the Salazars dismissed Citrus from the present action.

On April 3, 2023, the Salazars dismissed Kristi Salazar from the present action.

On August 29, 2024, the County filed the present motion. A hearing on the County’s motion is set for September 30, 2024, along with a final status conference on January 22, 2025, and a jury trial on February 4, 2025.

ANALYSIS

The County moves for a determination of good faith settlement with Salazar. 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 the County’s motion 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 the County’s motion stating a settlement amount of $50,000.00 is not disproportionate to the potential liability in this matter. The County 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 the County’s motion for a determination of good faith settlement.