Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV25220, Date: 2024-05-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV25220 Hearing Date: May 22, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion for Determination of Good Faith
Settlement filed by Defendants Russell Lyster, Hope Ranch Cattle Company, LLC,
and Isaiah Morales.
Tentative
The motion is granted.
Background
On August 4, 2022, Simone
Vaca (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Isaiah Morales, Russell Lyster,
Committed Fellowship, Calvary La Habra, and Hope Ranch Cattle Company, LLC for (1)
motor vehicle negligence, (2) general negligence, and (3) premises liability arising
out of an ATV accident occurring on June 12, 2021 in Idaho.
On October 12, 2022, Russell
Lyster (“Lyster”) filed his answer. On December 8, 2022, Committed Fellowship
filed its answer. On March 24, 2023, Hope Ranch Cattle Company, LLC (“Hope
Ranch”) filed its answer. On May 9, 2023, Isaiah Morales (“Morales”) filed his
answer.
On April 19, 2024, Defendants
Lyster, Hope Ranch, and Morales (collectively “Defendants”) filed a motion for
determination of good faith settlement. No opposition has been filed.
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
On June 12,
2021, Plaintiff was a passenger in a UTV owned by Lyster and driven by Morales,
at a property located at 4809 W. Rolling Hills Rad, Worley, Idaho, owned by
Hope Ranch. The UTV rolled over and Plaintiff sustained injuries. (See
Complaint, p. 5.)
(1) Rough
approximation of Plaintiff’s total recovery. Defendants contend Plaintiff
incurred $150,000 in medical bills (mostly covered by insurance) and that Plaintiff
lost income from being unable to work. (Motion, at p. 4 [numbered as p. 3],
lines 17-20.)
(2)
The settlor’s proportionate liability. Defendants provide
limited information, other than to say that they deny liability. (Page Decl., ¶ 4.)
(3) The amount paid in settlement. The settlement requires Defendants
to pay Plaintiff $500,000, the policy limits and totality of all insurance policies
available to the Defendants. (Id., ¶¶ 5-6.) Plaintiff agrees to dismiss
Defendants from the complaint. (Id.)
(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. This
settlement is for the total insurance policies available to Defendants. (Page
Decl., ¶ 6.)
(7) Any
evidence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests
of nonsettling defendants. Counsel asserts that there was not collusion and
that the settlement was reached through arms-length negotiations. (Page Decl.,
¶ 7.)
The Court
has considered the evidence in the record and the argument of counsel. The
Court finds, after considerin the Tech-Bilt factors, that the settlement
agreement was entered into in good faith.
Therefore,
the motion is GRANTED.
Conclusion
The
Court GRANTS the motion for determination of good faith settlement. under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6.
Moving
Party is ordered to give notice.