Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV29235, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV29235    Hearing Date: December 7, 2022    Dept: 39

Yesica Castro, et al. v. Samuel Valzquez, et al.

Case No. 21STCV29235

Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

            Plaintiffs Yesica Castro, Ceici Castro Castaneda, and Mario Antonio Salguero Castro (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant Lyft, Inc. (“Defendant”), among others, based on the death of Decedent German Castro Salguero in a motor vehicle collision.  Defendant has now settled with Plaintiffs and moves for a determination that the settlement was reached in good faith.  Defendant also seeks to redact and seal the amount of the settlement.

            The Court previously ruled that Defendant may redact the amount of the settlement.  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated October 25, 2022.)  Although the settlement amount is confidential, Defendant has apprised the Court and the other parties of the amount of the settlement, so the Court can hear this motion.  (Alcal Roofing & Insulation v. Superior Court (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1121, 1127.)  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.)  This motion is not opposed.  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.)  The evidence before the Court does not reflect any bad faith, and the settlement is consistent with what the Court would expect, given the facts and circumstances. 

Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1.         Defendant’s motion to redact and seal the settlement amount is granted.

2.         Defendant’s motion for determination of good faith settlement is granted.

3.         The Court finds that Defendant’s settlement with Plaintiffs was made in good faith, per Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6.

4.         The Court finds that all pending and future claims against Defendant for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence of comparative fault per section 877.6 are barred. 

5.         Defendant’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.