Judge: Stephen Morgan, Case: 21AVCV00932, Date: 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21AVCV00932 Hearing Date: May 9, 2023 Dept: A14
Background
This is personal injury action.
Plaintiff Jessica Magallanes (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on or about April 22,
2021, Plaintiff was lawfully on the property located at 3025 E Avenue S,
Palmdale, CA 93550 (the “Premises”) that was owned, operated, maintained, and
controlled by Defendants Foothill Plaza Group, LLC (“Foothill Plaza”); and
Harold Igdaloff, as trustee for the Igdaloff Family Trust (“Igdaloff”).
Plaintiff further alleges that Foothill Plaza and Igdaloff owed a duty of
reasonable care towards her and others and that duty was breached as the
Premises contained a large exposed height differential that was not properly
filled in and/or covered, and lacked signage and warnings and/or had improperly
placed signage and warnings, resulting in Plaintiff’s injuries.
On November 17, 2021, Plaintiff
filed her Complaint alleging three causes of action for: (1) Negligence against
Foothill Plaza and Igdaloff, (2) Premises Liability against Foothill Plaza and
Igdaloff, and (3) Negligence/Statutory Liability against Defendants County of
Los Angeles (“COLA”) and City of Palmdale (“Palmdale”).
On April 29, 2022, COLA filed its
Answer.
On May 13, 2022, Palmdale filed
its Answer.
On September 22, 2022, Plaintiff
dismissed COLA.
On October 20, 2022, after
seeking leave of court, Palmdale filed its Cross-Complaint, alleging four
causes of action against Foothill Plaza: (1) Comparative Indemnity and
Apportionment of Fault, (2) Total Equitable Indemnity, (3) Contribution, and
(4) Declaratory Relief.
On November 28, 2022, Foothill
Plaza filed its Answer to Palmdale’s Cross-Complaint.
On December 07, 2022, Foothill
Plaza filed its Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
On February 24, 2023, Plaintiff
dismissed Igdaloff.
On March 21, 2023 Foothill Plaza
filed an Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement.
On April 04, 2023, Palmdale filed
this Motion to Challenge Good Faith of a Settlement.
On April 26, 2023, Foothill Plaza
filed its Opposition.
On May 02, 2023, Palmdale filed
its Reply.
-----
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 – Foothill
Plaza presents that a settlement has been reached for $30,000.00 between
Plaintiff and itself.
-----
Tech-Bilt Factors –
The Tech-Bilt factors are:
·
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,
·
a
recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he
were found liable after a trial,
·
the
financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants,
·
the as
the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the
interests of nonsettling defendants, and
·
practical
considerations obviously require that the evaluation be made on the basis of information
available at the time of settlement.
(Tech-Bilt, Inc, supra, at
499-500.)
Foothill Plaza
has provided the following information in support of their good faith
settlement:
·
As a result of the subject incident, Plaintiff
allegedly sustained soft-tissue injuries to her left ankle and right knee.
(Decl. Michael A. Diaz ¶ 4.)
·
The adjusted past medical specials total
approximately $8,200.00. (Ibid.)
Palmdale
presents that the Good Faith Application is not supported by competent
admissible evidence as all purported facts presented in the application as the
facts presented are derived from hearsay in the declaration of Michael A. Diaz (“Diaz”),
counsel for Foothill Plaza. Next, Palmdale argues that the proposed settlement
fails to comply with the Tech-Bilt factors as: (1) the proposed
$30,000.00 amounts to less than 3% of the damages sought by Plaintiff; (2) no
admissible evidence is provided to explain Foothill Plaza’s role in the
operation of the Premises, so the Court cannot ascertain whether the proposed
settlement is proportionate to Foothill Plaza’s potential liability; (3)
Foothill Plaza has presented no evidence as to its applicable insurance
coverage or financial information; and (4) Foothill Plaza has offered no
breakdown of said settlement with respect to Plaintiff’s alleged economic and
non-economic damages. Palmdale next contends that it was excluded from any
ongoing settlement negotiations and, as such, Foothill Plaza’s assertion that
it “[has] not engaged in any conduct aimed at making the non-settling parties
pay more than their fair share toward judgment or settlement is discredited.
Palmdale emphasizes that under California law, a property owner has a
non-delegable duty to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition
and, whereas Foothill Plaza is the owner of the Premises, Palmdale’s liability
stems only from the fact that Foothill Plaza built the walkway 15 inches over
Palmdale’s easement.
Palmdale’s
notice states this is a case “Plaintiff contends to have incurred $15,000 in
medical expenses, $20,000 in future medical expenses, and $1,000,000 in pain,
suffering, and emotional distress[]” and “Plaintiff herself contends that she
has already incurred over $1 million in damages.” (Motion, Notice.) Palmdale
refers the Court to the Statement of Damages (“SOD”) they have received from
Plaintiff in the Declaration of Mellania E. Safarian (“Safarian”), Palmdale’s
counsel.
Foothill
Plaza’s Opposition maintains that its settlement was in good faith. Foothill
Plaza emphasizes that it never conceded that it owned, operated, maintained,
and/or controlled the Premises. Foothill Plaza believes that its insurance
limits are not at issue and that it has shown a breakdown as it presented that
Plaintiff alleges her adjusted past medical specials total approximately
$8,200.
Palmdale’s
Reply reiterates the arguments that (1) Foothill Plaza failed to establish its
proportionate liability, and (2) Foothill Plaza offers no admissible evidence
or authority to refute that it had a non-delegable duty to maintain the
Premises in a reasonably safe condition. Specifically, Palmdale is concerned
with Diaz’s declaration. Palmdale believes the failure to meet these elements
impacts Foothill Plaza’s obligations under Tech-Bilt factors. Palmdale
emphasizes that Foothill Plaza was the property owner of the Premises at the
time of the incident. Palmdale also argues that Foothill Plaza has attempted to
improperly shift their burden onto Palmdale.
Plaintiff’s
Complaint alleges actual and compensatory damages, “including, but not limited
to, her necessary medical and related expenses, as well as mental, emotional
and physical pain and suffering, as proven at the time of trial.” (Complaint ¶
45.) Plaintiff’s Prayer requests “award of Plaintiff’s general, special, actual
and compensatory damages as proven
at time of
trial, with interest thereon according to law;” “an award of costs incurred by
Plaintiff in bringing and maintaining this action;” and “[f]or such other and
further relief which this Court deems just and proper.” (See Complaint,
Prayer.)
At this time, Plaintiff
has not filed an SOD with the Court. However, Palmdale has provided a true and
correct copy of the SOD that it has received. (See Decl. Sefarian, ¶ 8, Exh.
B.) The SOD requests the following:
·
$1,000,000.00 in pain, suffering, and
inconvenience;
·
$1,000,000.00 in emotional distress;
·
Interest as permitted by law;
·
$15,000.00 in medical expenses to date; and
·
$20,000.00 in the present value of future
medical expenses.
(Exh. B.)
It is unclear
where Diaz obtained the $8,200.00 number for adjusted past medical specials.
However, it is patent that $30,000 is nowhere near the damages requested in
Plaintiff’s SOD, which amount to $2,035,000.00 plus interest. Further, there is
no presentation of the following Tech-Bilt factors: a rough
approximation of plaintiffs' total recovery and the settlor's proportionate
liability and the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling
defendants.
Practical
considerations of what is presented show that the Court has no ability to
determine the proportionate liability of the parties. The Court notes that
Palmdale has presented the Grant Deed indicating Foothill Plaza’s ownership of
the Premises, suggesting that Foothill Plaza has a higher percentage of
liability to Plaintiff. (See Decl. Safarian ¶ 4, Exh. A.) However, nothing is
presented regarding the easement which Palmdale concedes it owns.
Accordingly, the
Court DENIES the motion without prejudice. Should Foothill Plaza seek to
reapply for a good faith settlement, it needs to address the Tech-Bilt
factors.
-----
Conclusion