Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV08909, Date: 2024-07-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV08909 Hearing Date: July 29, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion for Determination of Good Faith
Settlement filed by Defendant Negrin N. Farasatpour.
Tentative
The motion is granted.
Background
On March 11, 2022, Soussan
Mojiri-Andani (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Negin N. Farasatpour (“Farasatpour”)
and Does 1 through 50 for (1) Strict Liability, (2) Violation of California Dog
Bite Statute, Civil Code section 3342, and (3) Negligence causes of action
arising out of a dog bite incident occurring on March 15, 2020.
On July 18, 2022,
Farasatpour filed an answer.
On October 17, 2022,
Plaintiff filed an amendment to complaint adding Hersel Saidian as Doe 1.
On April 16, 2024, Farasatpour
filed a motion for determination of good faith settlement. No opposition has
been filed. This matter was continued from July 1 to July 29; Farasatpour filed
a notice of continuance on July 2.
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 (The Rutter Group 2023)
¶¶ 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 that on March 15, 2020, Plaintiff was bitten by a dog owned by Hersel
Saidian and in the possession of Farasatpour. Plaintiff and Farasatpour
attended a mediation on March 18, 2024; Plaintiff accepted the mediator’s
proposal for $30,000 settlement in exchange for dismissing the lawsuit and
claims against Farasatpour. (Motion, 1:14-20.)
(1) Rough
approximation of Plaintiff’s total recovery. Farasatpour contends Plaintiff
claims $11,825.84 in medical expenses, which have been reduced to $5,516.84. (Id.,
5:9-11.) This suggests that a rough approximation of Plaintiff’s total recovery
would be in the mid five figures (or possibly less).
(2)
The settlor’s proportionate liability. Farasatpour
contends the dog belonged to her ex-husband, Hersel Saidian, whom Plaintiff is
seeking default judgment against. Farasatpour concedes both she and Hersel are
equally liable to Plaintiff for her damages. (Id., 3:4-7.)
(3) The amount paid in settlement. The settlement requires Defendants
to pay Plaintiff $30,000.00. (Id., ¶ 3:9-12.) Plaintiff agrees to
dismiss Farasatpour from the complaint. (Id., 3:12-15.)
(4) The
allocation of the settlement proceeds among plaintiffs. There is only one
Plaintiff, 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. This
settlement is for a portion of Farasatpour’s State Farm insurance policy. (Id.,
4:13-17.)
(7) Any
evidence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests
of nonsettling defendants. Farasatpour states the settlement agreement is
based on the mediator’s proposal, and the settlement terms were determined
after arms-length negotiations. (Id., 4:20-23.) There is no evidence of
collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct in the record.
After
consideration of the Tech-Bilt factors, the Court finds that the
settlement was made in good faith within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure
section 877.6.
Therefore,
the motion is GRANTED.
Conclusion
The
Court GRANTS the motion for determination of good faith settlement.
Moving
Party is ordered to give notice.