Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV19707, Date: 2024-11-19 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT  (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE.  4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020) 
IMPORTANT:  In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely.  The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited.  The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants. 
ALSO NOTE:  If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar.  THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 20STCV19707    Hearing Date: November 19, 2024    Dept: 29

Agnew v. Jensen Enterprises
20STCV19707
Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement filed by Defendant Tacos El Unico, Inc.

Tentative

The motion is denied without prejudice.

Background 

On May 26, 2020, Plaintiff Renee Agnew (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint in this action against Defendants Jensen Enterprises, Inc., Jensen Precast, and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for premises liability and negligence arising out of injuries Plaintiff allegedly sustained after tripping and falling on June 6, 2018, on Defendants’ premises at or near 1375 West Adams in Los Angeles.

On January 3, 2022, Jensen Enterprises, Inc. dba Jensen Precast (erroneously sued as separate entities) (“Jensen”) filed an answer to the complaint.

On various dates running from May 2022 through March 2024, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Little Shell LLC as Doe 1; Victor Sanchez as Doe 2; Manuel Sanchez as Doe 3; Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC as Doe 4; Metamoros LLC as Doe 5; L.A. Grease Solutions, Inc. as Doe 6; Dolce BG, Inc. dba Baskin Robbins (“Dolce”) as Doe 7; and Tacos El Unico, Inc. as Doe 8.

On various dates running from January through May 2023, Manuel Sanchez, Victor Sanchez, Matamoros LLC (erroneously sued as Metamoros LLC), and Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC filed answers to the complaint.

On November 7, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).  Plaintiff did not file the FAC until March 6, 2024, but Jensen nonetheless filed an answer to the FAC on December 15, 2023.  On March 11, 2024, Dolce filed an answer to the FAC.

On February 9, 2024, Manuel Sanchez, Victor Sanchez, and Matamoros LLC filed a cross-complaint against Tacos El Unico, Inc. and L.A. Grease Solutions, Inc.  On March 8, 2024, Tacos El Unico was dismissed from the cross-complaint.  On April 8, 2024, a First Amended Cross-Complaint was filed.

Plaintiff filed requests to dismiss Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC (Doe 4) and Jensen in February and April 2024.

On June 13, 2024, Tacos El Unico filed a cross-complaint against Jensen, Manuel Sanchez, Victor Sanches, and Matamoros, LLC.  On September 19, 2024, Tacos El Unico filed a request to dismiss the causes of action in its cross-complaint against Jensen.

Relating to the matter set for hearing on November 19, 2024, Tacos El Unico reached a settlement agreement with Plaintiff.  (Tafarella Decl., ¶ 5.).  Tacos El Unico filed a motion for a determination of good faith settlement on October 21, 2024.

LA Grease Solutions filed an opposition to the motion on November 7.  Tacos El Unico filed a reply on November 12.

Legal Standard

In a case involving two or more alleged joint tortfeasors, a party may seek a court order under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 determining that a settlement between the plaintiff and one or more of the alleged tortfeasors is in good faith. A judicial determination of good faith “bar[s] any other joint tortfeasor … from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor … for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6(c).)

In evaluating whether a settlement has been made in good faith, courts consider the following factors, as set forth by the California Supreme Court in the landmark case Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488:

               1) “a rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery”;

               2) “the settlor’s proportionate liability”;

               3) “the amount paid in settlement”;

              4) “the allocation of the settlement proceeds among plaintiffs”;

5) “a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial”;

               6) the settling party's “financial conditions and insurance policy limits”;

7) any evidence of “collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.”

(Id. at 499.) “Practical considerations obviously require that the evaluation be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement.” (Ibid.)

The “good faith” concept in Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 is a flexible principle imposing on reviewing courts the obligation to guard against the numerous ways in which the interests of nonsettling defendants may be unfairly prejudiced. (Rankin v. Curtis (1986) 183 Cal. App. 3d 939, 945.) Accordingly, under Tech-Bilt, the party asserting the lack of “good faith” may meet this burden by demonstrating that the settlement is so far "out of the ballpark" as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute. (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at 499-500.) Such a demonstration would establish that the proposed settlement was not a “settlement made in good faith” within the terms of section 877.6. (Ibid.)

The Supreme Court explained that Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 is designed to further two equitable policies:

1) encouragement of settlements; and

2) equitable allocation of costs among joint tortfeasors. 

(Ibid.) 

Those policies would not be served by an approach which emphasizes one to the virtual exclusion of the other. (Ibid.) Accordingly, a settlement will not be found in good faith unless the amount is reasonable in light of the settling tortfeasor's proportionate share of liability. (Std. Pac. of San Diego v. A. A. Baxter Corp. (1986) 176 Cal. App. 3d 577, 589.) Or, as the California Supreme Court has stated, 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.” (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at 499.)

When a motion seeking a determination under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 is not opposed, the burden on the moving parties to show that the settlement was made in good faith is slight. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261 [holding that a “barebones motion” including a declaration setting forth “a brief background of the case is sufficient”].)

When a good faith motion is contested, however, the moving parties have the initial burden of producing evidence in support of the requested good faith determination. (Id. at pp. 1261-1262.) “Section 877.6 and Tech-Bilt require an evidentiary showing, through expert declarations or other means, that the proposed settlement is within the reasonable range permitted by the criterion of good faith.” (Mattco Forge v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1351.) “Substantial evidence” is required. (Id. at p. 1352.) A declaration from a settling defendant’s attorney that states, in conclusory fashion, that the client has little, or no share of the liability may not be sufficient. (Greshko v. County of Los Angeles (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 822, 834-35; see also 3 Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (2024) ¶¶ 12:774, 12:872-873.) 

The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the party opposing the good faith determination.  The “party asserting a lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6(d); see also 3 Weil & Brown, supra, at ¶ 12:875.) 

Discussion

Plaintiff alleges in the FAC she was injured when she tripped and fell on a manhole lid “that was negligently left uneven, or was not properly closed, leaving a portion of the lid lifted above the flat ground.” (FAC, at p. 4.)  Plaintiff’s injuries include a torn meniscus in both knees and injuries to her ribs; chest; lower back left shoulder, arm, elbow, and hand; and right elbow and hand. (Tafarella Decl., ¶ 3.)

Plaintiff has settled with Defendant Tacos El Unico.  (Id., ¶ 5.)  The settling defendant moves for an order that the settlement is in good faith under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6. 

Defendant LA Grease Solutions opposes the motion. 

As a threshold matter, the Court notes that the opposition filed by the opposing party was not timely.  Nonetheless, the Court exercises its discretion to consider the opposition.

The Court now turns to an analysis of the settlement under the Tech-Bilt factors:

(1) Rough approximation of Plaintiff’s total recovery.

The Court has received no evidence regarding Plaintiff’s total recovery, other than a passing statement on “information and belief” (which may be evidence of the declarant’s state of mind but is not evidence of the underlying facts).  (See Tafarella Decl., ¶ 8.)  Moving party states that Plaintiff claims extensive injuries (id., ¶ 3), but there is no evidence provided regarding, for example, the amounts claimed by Plaintiff in discovery responses or other documents regarding medical special damages or other damages.

(2) The settlor’s proportionate liability.

Moving party provides no information regarding its proportionate share of the liability.  Moving party simply states that the settlement amount is “very reasonable.”  (Tafarella Decl., ¶ 6.)

The Court must conduct its Tech-Bilt analysis based on the facts, not unsupported allegations. (Mattco Forge v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1351-1352.), And the analysis must be based on the “information available at the time of settlement.”  (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 499.)

(3) The amount paid in settlement.

Moving party reports that the settlement involves a payment of $175,000 plus the assignment to Plaintiff of certain rights against other parties that moving party states (without analysis or explanation) are “believed to be valued” or “has been valued” at $200,000. (Tafarella Decl., ¶¶ 5, 9-11.)  Moving party asserts that the total value of the settlement is $375,000.  (Id., ¶ 5. )

(4) The allocation of the settlement proceeds among plaintiffs.

There is only one Plaintiff, and so this is not a factor.

(5) A recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial.

This factor supports the request for a good faith determination.

(6) The settling party’s financial conditions and insurance policy limits.

The settling defendant is covered by an insurance policy with a $1 million policy limit.  (Tafarella Decl., ¶ 5.)

(7) Any evidence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.

The settling defendant asserts that the settlement was reached after arms’ length negotiations.  (Tafarella Decl., ¶ 14.)

The Court has carefully reviewed all of the evidence in the record.  The Court finds that Defendant Tacos El Unico has not met its initial burden, as the moving party, of producing evidence sufficient to support the requested good faith determination.  (See (Mattco Forge, supra, 38 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1351-1352; City of Grand Terrace, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1261-1262.)

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.  Moving party may file a subsequent motion seeking a good faith determination, supported by sufficient evidence to meet its initial burden of production under the case law.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion of Defendant Tacos El Unico for a good faith settlement determination under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6.