Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV00899, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV00899    Hearing Date: January 21, 2025    Dept: G

Defendant Javier Perez Betancourt’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Javier Perez Betancourt’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision. On March 22, 2024, Plaintiff Diana Khanh Hoang Nguyen filed a complaint against Defendants Javier Perez Betancourt, Jerson Osmedy Contreras Pineda, and Does 1-30, alleging causes of action for (1) motor vehicle negligence and (2) general negligence.

On June 3, 2024, Contreras Pineda filed a cross-complaint against Perez Betancourt and Roes 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) indemnity, (2) comparative contribution, and (3) declaratory relief.

On October 23, 2024, Nguyen dismissed Perez Betancourt from the present action.

On November 12, 2024, Perez Betancourt filed a notice of settlement.

On November 25, 2024, Perez Betancourt filed the present motion. A hearing on the present motion is set for January 21, 2025, along with an OSC Re: Dismissal.

ANALYSIS

Perez Betancourt moves for a determination of good faith settlement with Nguyen. 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, Perez Betancourt’s motion and the supporting declaration of Perez Betancourt’s counsel adequately describe the background of this case. The moving papers provide sufficient reasoning as to why the settlement was reached in good faith, noting the settlement was based on Perez Betancourt’s insurance policy limits and Nguyen’s medical expenses. The moving papers also state the settlement was not the result of 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, the court GRANTS Perez Betancourt’s motion.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Perez Betancourt’s motion for a determination of good faith settlement is GRANTED.