Judge: Stephen Morgan, Case: 21AVCV00846, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21AVCV00846 Hearing Date: July 28, 2022 Dept: A14
Background
This is a conversion action. Plaintiff 720 Degrees, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on or abut January 11, 2021, Plaintiff transported and delivered its Piper Arrow II aircraft (“the Plane”) to Defendant High Desert Avionics, Inc. (“HDA”) to install a new autopilot avionics device and upgrade a GPS avionics device into the aircraft and that on or about February 24, 2021, Plaintiff was advised by HAD that the installation of the avionics devices into the aircraft was almost completed and that Plaintiff could come to the facility on February 26, 2021 to pay for the avionics work and take pack possession of the Plane. Plaintiff further alleges that prior to pick up on the morning of February 26, 2021, a fire started in the workshop which spread to the adjoining hanger in which Plaintiff’s Plane had been stored leading to the Plane being (1) damaged and (2) towed out of HDA's hanger. Following this, Plaintiff alleges that beginning on or about August 30, 2021, plaintiff orally demanded the return and access to the Plane, but defendants HDA and failed and refused, and continue to fail and refuse, to return the personal property to Plaintiff or allow Plaintiff any access to that property.
On October 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed its Complaint alleging two causes of action for Negligence and Conversion.
On January 05, 2021, Defendant Shouling & Philip Enterprise dba Barnes Aviation, LLC Erroneously Sued as Shouling & Philip Enterprise, Inc. filed its Answer.
On January 18, 2021, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging the same causes of action, Negligence and Conversion.
On January 21, 2021, Defendant American Airports Corp. and County of Los Angeles filed their respective Answers to the related case.
On February 28, 2022, Plaintiff corrected (1) the fictitious/incorrect name of Doe 11 to American Airports Corporation and (2) the fictitious/incorrect name of Doe 12 to Shouling & Philip Enterprise dba Barnes Aviation, LLC in the FAC.
On March 11, 2022, Defendant Shouling & Philip Enterprise dba Barnes Aviation, LLC filed its Answer to the FAC.
On March 18, 2022, HDA filed its Answer to the FAC as well as a Cross-Complaint.
On March 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed its Answer to the Cross-Complaint.
On March 24, 2022, Defendant Shouling & Philip Enterprise dba Barnes Aviation, LLC filed its Answer to the Cross-Complaint.
On April 06, 2022, (1) Defendant American Airports Corp. filed its Answer to the FAC and (2) Defendant County of Los Angeles filed its Answer to the Cross-Complaint.
On May 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed its Application for Writ of Possession.
No Opposition has been filed.
On June 17, 2022, the Writ of Possession was continued to July 14, 2022.
On June 28, 2022, HDA filed its Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement.
No Opposition has been filed. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6, discussing hearings on the issue of good faith settlement, states that notice must be given in the manner provided in subdivision (b) of Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1005. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6(a).) Thus, moving papers must be filed at least 16 court days, opposing papers at least nine court days, and reply papers at least five court days prior to the hearing. The application for Good Faith Settlement was sent via express mail on June 28, 2022. (See Application, Proof of Service.) “[I]f the notice is served by facsimile transmission, express mail, or another method of delivery providing for overnight delivery, the required 16-day period of notice before the hearing shall be increased by two calendar days.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).)
Accordingly, the Court continued the Writ of Possession to July 26, 2022. The Court addresses the Writ of Possession and the Application for Good Faith Settlement together.
No Opposition or Motion to Contest has been filed. Under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6, “[w]ithin 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.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6(a)(2).) Notice was given on June 28, 2022 by electronic transmission. Due to electronic transmission, any duty to do any act or make any response is extended by two court days. (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6(a)(4)(B).) 25 days from notice of the Good Faith Settlement is Saturday, July 23, 2022. “Unless otherwise provided by law, if the last day for the performance of any act that is required by these rules to be performed within a specific period of time falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or other legal holiday, the period is extended to and includes the next day that is not a holiday.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 1.10(b).) The next court day is Monday, July 25, 2022. With the two-day extension under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6(a)(4)(B), a Motion to Contest is due on Wednesday, July 27, 2022.
-----
Analysis
Legal Standard for Good Faith Settlement– Under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §877.6, “[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.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc.§ 877.6(a)(1).) Alternatively, “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.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §877.6(a)(2).) Such an application shall include “the settling parties, and the basis, terms, and amount of the settlement” and “[t]he notice, application, and proposed order shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by personal service.” (Id.) “The issue of the good faith of a settlement may be determined by the court on the basis of affidavits served with the notice of hearing, and any counter-affidavits filed in response, or the court may, in its discretion, receive other evidence at the hearing.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc.§ 877.6(b).) “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(c).) The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue. (Code Civ. Proc.§ 877.6(d).)
The courts consider the so-called Tech-Bilt factors when determining whether a settlement is made in good faith:
“[T]he intent and policies underlying section 877.6 require that a number of factors be taken into account including 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. [citations omitted] Finally, practical considerations obviously require that the evaluation be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement. . . . 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.”
(Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499–500. See also id. at 499 [“a disproportionately low settlement figure is often reasonable in the case of a relatively insolvent, and uninsured, or underinsured, joint tortfeasor”].)
-----
Discussion
Application – HDA presents that a settlement was reached between the itself and Plaintiff. The Settlement is as follows:
HDA will pay, through its insurer, Plaintiff $35,000.00 for damages to the plane as a result of this incident; and
Plaintiff will pay HDA $31,000.00 arising out of its claim for damages as a result of this incident; and
Each settling party is to bear their own fees and costs; and
Upon completion of all conditions of the settlement, Plaintiff will dismiss HDA from its action with prejudice and HDA will dismiss its Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff with prejudice and remove the lien.
(Application, 3:19-26.)
To support its Application for Good Faith Settlement and to meet the Tech-Bilt standards, HAD provides that (1) the avionics equipment and labor charges associated with work on Plaintiff’s plane amounted to $31,000.00; (2) the aircraft suffered heat and fire damage, among other 12 things, a wing, some of the cabin windows, and the top of the fuselage; (3) Plaintiff lost use of the aircraft from February 26, 2021 to present; and (4) HDA's policy limit is $150,000.00 for each aircraft and $300,000.00 for each occurrence.
No party has filed any opposition to the Application for Good Faith Settlement. As a result, a barebones motion will be sufficient to support a finding that the settlement was made in good faith for the purposes of Cal. Code Civ. Proc. section 877.6.
Accordingly, the Application for Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.
-----
Conclusion
Defendant High Desert Avionics, Inc.’s Application for Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.