Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 19STCV34491, Date: 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV34491    Hearing Date: October 25, 2022    Dept: 29

Gerardo Serna Hernandez v. Barry Douglas Vanhauwe 



Motion for Good Faith Settlement filed by Defendants Barry Douglas Vanhauwe and Lisa Clavesilla

Shape

 

TENTATIVE

 

Defendants Barry Douglas Vanhauwe and Lisa Clavesilla’s unopposed motion for good faith settlement determination is GRANTED.

 

Legal Standard

 

Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 877.6(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that, on noticed motion, “[a]ny party to an action wherein 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   . . . 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.”  (CCP § 877.6(c).)  Although a determination that a settlement was in good faith does not discharge any other party from liability, “it shall reduce the claims against the others in the amount stipulated” by the settlement.  (CCP § 877(a).)      

 

“The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.”  (CCP § 877.6(d).)  

 

In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499, the California Supreme Court identified the following nonexclusive factors courts are to consider in determining if a settlement is in good faith under section 877.6:  “a rough approximation of plaintiffs' total recovery and the settlor's proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial.  Other relevant considerations include the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants, as well as the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.”    

 

The evaluation of whether a settlement was made in good faith is required to “be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement.”  (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at 499.)  “‘[A] defendant’s settlement figure must not be grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person, at the time of the settlement, would estimate the settling defendant’s liability to be.’ [Citation.]”  (Ibid.)    

 

“The party asserting the lack of good faith, who has the burden of proof on that issue (§ 877.6, subd. (d)), should be permitted to demonstrate, if he can, that the settlement is so far ‘out of the ballpark’ in relation to these factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute.  Such a demonstration would establish that the proposed settlement was not a ‘settlement made in good faith’ within the terms of section 877.6.”  (Id. at 499-500.)    

 

 “Thus, Tech-Bilt held that in determining whether a settlement was made in good faith for purposes of section 877.6, a key factor a trial court should consider is whether the amount paid in settlement bears a reasonable relationship to the settlor’s proportionate share of liability. (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 499–500 . . . .)  This is because one of the main goals of section 877.6 is ‘allocating costs equitably among multiple tortfeasors.’  (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 502 . . . .).”  (TSI Seismic Tenant Space, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 159, 166.)  “Accordingly, a court not only looks at the alleged tortfeasor's potential liability to the plaintiff, but it must also consider the culpability of the tortfeasor vis-à-vis other parties alleged to be responsible for the same injury.  Potential liability for indemnity to a nonsettling defendant is an important consideration for the trial court in determining whether to approve a settlement by an alleged tortfeasor.  [Citation.]”  (Ibid.)  

 

Discussion

 

Here, although there is no opposition, the Court considers the Tech-Bilt factors as applied to the settlement between Plaintiffs and Defendants.  

As to a rough estimate of Plaintiffs’ total recovery and Defendants’ share of liability, Defendants argue that Plaintiff Hernandez’s claimed medical bills were for approximately $64,085.02, and Plaintiff Martinez’s special damages were $94,717.13.

Defendants argue that Defendant Schaefer, who was operating a streetsweeper, bares the majority (if not all) of the fault for reversing out of a private driveway without looking to make sure no cars were coming. Defendant Schaefer will more than likely argue that Defendant Vanhauwe was traveling at an unsafe speed and should have been able to avoid the accident. However, Defendant Vanhauwe was only traveling 25 mph at the time of the incident.

As to the amount paid in settlement, Defendants have settled Plaintiff’s claims for $100,000 to each Plaintiff.

Moreover, there is a recognition that Defendants should pay less in settlement than they would if found liable at trial.

Defendants also provide evidence that the $100,000 per person is their policy limit and they have no other insurance. (Velastegui Decl., 3; Exh. B.)

There has been no collusion, fraud or tortious conduct between the settlor and the plaintiff aimed at making the nonsettling party pay more than their fair share. (Id., 4.)

 

No other Defendant has opposed this motion or filed contests relating to this settlement.  

 

After considering the Tech-Bilt factors, the Court finds and determines that the settlement entered into between Plaintiffs and Defendants was made in good faith within the meaning of CCP § 877.6.  Therefore, the motion is GRANTED.   

  

Moving defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.