Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV00301, Date: 2025-06-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV00301 Hearing Date: June 10, 2025 Dept: 29
Kaplow v. Assisted Home Recovery
23STCV00301
Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement filed by Defendant Lucerne
One, LLC.
Tentative
The motion is granted.
Background
On January 6,
2023, Susan Kaplow, John Kalow, James Kaplow, and Nancy Filoso, individually
and as successors in interest to Decedent Marion Medoff (collectively “Plaintiffs”)
filed this action against Assisted Home Recovery, Inc. dba Assisted Home Care,
Lucerne One, LLC, Pooya Mobasseri, M.D., A Caring Touch Board and Care II, LLC,
Paige Esquival, and Does 1 through 100 for (1) dependent adult abuse and
neglect, (2) negligence as based upon medical malpractice, (3) negligence, and
(4) wrongful death, all arising out of the care of Marion Medoff (“Decedent”) from
March 12, 2021 to January 12, 2022.
On May 22, 2023,
Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against the same
defendants for the same causes of action.
On May 23, 2023,
Assisted Home Recovery, Inc. dba Assisted Home Care and Pooya Mobasseri, M.D.
(collectively “Assisted Home”) filed an answer to the FAC.
On June 23,
2023, A Caring Touch Board and Care II LLC and Paige Esquival (collectively, “ACT”)
each filed an answer to the FAC.
On August 25,
2023, Lucerne One, LLC (“Lucerne”) filed an answer to the FAC.
On April
9, 2025, Lucerne filed this motion for determination of good faith settlement. The
hearing was initially scheduled for May 8, 2025, and was continued to June 10,
2025, by the moving party.
On April
25, 2025, ACT filed an opposition. ACT withdrew its opposition on May 28, and
two days later ACT filed its own application for good faith settlement.
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, subd. (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
Lucerne has agreed to settle with Plaintiffs
for $75,000 and moves for a good faith settlement determination. The motion is
now unopposed (the only opposition, filed by ACT, has been withdrawn).
The Court must consider and weigh the various
factors set forth in Tech-Bilt and its progeny to determine whether the Lucerne’s
settlement with Plaintiffs is a good faith settlement under Code of Civil
Procedure section 877.6.
1.
Rough approximation of Plaintiffs’ total recovery.
The damages in a wrongful death action are
measured by an amount to compensate for the loss of society, comfort, and companionship,
and therefore a rough approximation of Plaintiffs’ total recovery is difficult
or impossible to determine. Lucerne contends that a settlement of $75,000 is “in
the ballpark,” and no other party contends otherwise.
2.
The settlor’s proportionate liability.
Decedent was a resident at Lucerne for approximately
nine months and was under the care of a hospice company, Assisted Home, during
this entire time. (Young Decl., ¶ 4.) Lucerne contends that it did not directly
cause any harm to Decedent and that any liability in this case would fall
primarily on Assisted Home (which was responsible for Decedent’s care) and ACT
(where Decedent resided at the time she passed).
3.
The amount paid in settlement.
Lucerne and Plaintiffs have agreed to settlement of Plaintiffs’
claims in exchange for a payment of $75,000.
4.
The allocation of the settlement proceeds among
plaintiffs.
Lucerne contends that there are no allocation issues
as it is settling with the members of a single family.
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 a good faith determination.
6.
The settling party’s financial conditions and
insurance policy limits.
Lucerne will pay $10,000 of the settlement, and its
insurance carrier, Kinsale Insurance Company, will pay the remaining $65,000. (Young,
¶ 7.) Lucerne does not argue that it is settling for its policy limits or that a
small settlement amount is justified by any uncertainties about its financial condition.
7.
Any evidence of collusion, fraud, or tortious
conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.
There is no direct or circumstantial evidence of collusion,
fraud, or tortious conduct.
Taking all of these factors into account, the
Court finds that Lucerne’s settlement with Plaintiffs was in good faith.
The motion is granted.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS the motion of Lucerne
One, LLC for a determination
of good faith settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6.
The Court RULES that the settlement between Plaintiffs
Susan Kaplow, John Kalow, James Kaplow, and Nancy Filoso, individually and as
successors in interest to Marion Medoff and Defendant Lucerne One, LLC was
made in good faith.
Moving Party is ordered to give notice.