Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 18STCV09165, Date: 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 18STCV09165 Hearing Date: September 1, 2022 Dept: 39
Alex Johnson, et al. v. Imperial Supplies, LLC
Case No. 18STCV09165
Order #1 of 2
Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiffs filed this action on December 20, 2018, and filed a second amended cross-complaint on November 30, 2020, alleging that the decedent, Ronald Campbell Johnson (the “Decedent”), died following his exposure to toxic chemicals during the course of his employment as a vehicle technician for FedEx at the Los Angeles International Airport. Plaintiff named 19 different companies that may have been responsible for Decedent’s death. Now, Ingersoll Rand, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves for summary judgment.
“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.] There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.” (Ibid.)
Defendant relies on Plaintiffs’ deficient discovery responses. Plaintiffs cannot identify which of Defendant’s products the Decedent used and had no evidence how the Decedent was exposed to toxins from Defendant’s products. Simply, Plaintiffs have no evidence that the Decedent was exposed to toxins from Defendant’s products. Plaintiffs’ factually-devoid discovery responses shift the burden to Plaintiffs to raise triable issues of material fact as to whether Defendant exposed Decedent to products that caused the Decedent’s pulmonary fibrosis. (See Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 590.) They fail to do so. Plaintiffs have not opposed this motion, and there is nothing in the record giving rise to a triable issue. Therefore, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.
Defendant’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.
Order #2 of 2
Defendant The Lincoln Company’s Application for
Determination of Good Faith Settlement
Defendant The Lincoln Company (“Defendant”) seeks a determination that the settlement between Defendant and Plaintiffs Alex Johnson, Collin Johnson, and Chelsea Johnson (“Plaintiffs”) was in good faith. In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, the court set forth the factors to consider when determining whether a settlement is made in good faith. The Tech-Bilt factors are: (1) a rough approximation of plaintiff’s total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (4) a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial; (5) the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants; and (6) the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of the non-settling defendants. (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 498-501.) However, the moving party on an unopposed motion for determination of good faith settlement is not required to set forth a full discussion of the Tech-Bilt factors by declaration or affidavit. The moving party on an unopposed motion for determination of good faith settlement need only advance a motion setting forth the basic grounds for the determination of good faith and a declaration setting forth a brief background of the case. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.)
In this case, Plaintiffs contend that Decedent Robert Campbell Johnson (“Decedent”) died from exposure to toxic chemicals. Plaintiffs contend Defendant manufactured products that exposed Decedent to toxic chemicals and contributed to his death. Defendant settled with Plaintiffs for $5,000. The evidence before the Court does not reflect any bad faith in connection with the settlement, and the motion is not opposed.
Based upon the foregoing, the Court grants the motion. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.