Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV01728, Date: 2025-03-24 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: 23PSCV01728    Hearing Date: March 24, 2025    Dept: G

Defendant and Cross-Defendant Zhirui Ma’s Motion for Good Faith Settlement

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant and Cross-Defendant Zhirui Ma’s Motion for Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action arising from an automobile collision. On January 17, 2022, defendant Zhirui Ma, who was on the job for Xiyangyang Moving Company, rear-ended plaintiff Bruce Tri Tames’ vehicle. The force of the collision caused Tames’ vehicle to rear-end the vehicle driven by plaintiff Neslie Palma. Plaintiff Christian Palma was a passenger in Neslie Palma’s vehicle.

On June 8, 2023, Tames filed a complaint against Ma, Daniel Sanchez, and Does 1-10, alleging a cause of action for motor vehicle negligence. On September 13, 2023, plaintiffs Neslie and Christian Palmas filed a complaint, Case No. 23PSCV03507. Defendant Ma answered this complaint and filed a notice of related case on December 19, 2023. Case No. 23PSCV01728 is the lead case.

On February 6, 2025, Ma filed this present motion. A hearing on Ma’s motion is set for March 24, 2025, along with a case management conference/status conference re: ADR.

ANALYSIS

Defendant and cross-defendant Zhirui Ma moves for a determination of good faith settlement with plaintiffs Neslie Palma and Christian Palma in consolidated non-lead Case No. 23PSCV03507. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS the motion.

Legal Standard

In a noticed motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (a)(2):

“[A] settling party may give notice of settlement to all parties and to the court, together with an application for determination of good faith settlement and a proposed order. The application shall indicate the settling parties, and the basis, terms, and amount of the settlement. The notice, application, and proposed order shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by personal service. Proof of service shall be filed with the court. Within 25 days of the mailing of the notice, application, and proposed order, or within 20 days of personal service, a nonsettling party may file a notice of motion to contest the good faith of the settlement. If none of the nonsettling parties files a motion within 25 days of mailing of the notice, application, and proposed order, or within 20 days of personal service, the court may approve the settlement. The notice by a nonsettling party shall be given in the manner provided in subdivision (b) of Section 1005.”

“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 that Ma’s motion adequately describes the settling parties, and the basis, terms, and amount of the settlement. The court also finds the motion provides sufficient reasoning as to why the parties reached settlement in good faith with Ma’s motion stating a settlement amount of $40,000 is not disproportionate to the potential liability in this matter. Ma also states there is no evidence of any collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed at injuring the interests of non-settling parties.

In addition, the court did not receive an opposition to Defendant and Cross-Defendant Ma’s Motion for Good Faith Settlement.  Therefore, the court finds the motion provides sufficient grounds for a good faith determination, and the motion is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS Defendant and Cross-Defendant Zhirui Ma’s Motion for Good Faith Settlement.