Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV32931, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV32931 Hearing Date: January 19, 2024 Dept: 29
Tentative
The hearing is CONTINUED.
Background
This case arises out of a fall incident on August
19, 2022. On October 6, 2022, Plaintiff Zara Leybovich (“Plaintiff”) filed a
complaint against Defendants JMDG European Design LLC dba Michel Clair Design,
Bejamin Leybovich, and DOES 1 through 80, asserting causes of action for (1) Premise
Liability and (2) General Negligence.
On April 6, 2023, Defendant JMDG European
Design LLC dba Michel Clair Design filed a cross-complaint against Defendant Benjamin
Leybovich, Arko Enterprise Inc. dba A1 Construction & Remodeling, and Roes
1 through 50. On July 6, 2023, Defendant Benjamin Leybovich filed a
cross-complaint against Defendant JMDG European Design LLC dba Michel Clair
Design and Arko Enterprise Inc. dba A1 Construction & Remodeling.
On July 26, 2023, Defendant JMDG European
Design LLC dba Michel Clair Design was dismissed with prejudice from
Plaintiff’s complaint.
On August 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request
for dismissal as to Defendant Benjamin Leybovich with prejudice.
On August 25, 2023, Defendant Benjamin
Leybovich filed a request for dismissal of the Cross-Defendant JMDG European
Design LLC dba Michel Clair Design of his cross-complaint.
On August 25, 2023, Defendant JMDG European
Design LLC dba Michel Clair Design requested dismissal of Defendant Benjamin
Leybovich of its cross-complaint.
On April 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed the
application for determination of good faith settlement between her and
Defendant Benjamin Leybovich. The application was set for hearing on January 19,
2024.
On May 17, 2023, Defendant JMDG European
Design LLC dba Michel Clair Design (“Opposing Defendant”) filed a motion to
challenge Plaintiff’s application for determination of good faith settlement. This
motion is set to be heard on May 15, 2024.
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
Opposing
Defendant filed a competing motion to challenge the determination good faith
settlement between Plaintiff and Defendant Benjamin Leybovich. The hearing on Opposing
Defendant’s motion is set for May 15, 2024.
Given the
substantial overlap between Plaintiff’s application and Opposing Defendant’s
motion, the Court CONTINUES this hearing on the application for determination
of good faith settlement so that both Plaintiff’s application and Opposing
Defendant’s motion may be heard at the same time.
Conclusion
The
Court CONTINUES this application for determination of good faith settlement to
May 15, 2024.
Plaintiff
is ordered to give notice.