Judge Teresa A. Beaudet, Case Number: 24STCP00131, Date: 2024-04-19 Tentative Ruling

XTEN ARCHITECTURE, INC.,

Petitioner,

vs.

1535 CARLA RIDGE OF LOUISIANA, LLC, et al.

Respondents.

Case No.:

24STCP00131

Hearing Date:

April 19, 2024

Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

PETITION TO CONFIRM CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION AWARD;

PETITIONER XTEN ARCHITECTURE, INC.’S APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER DETERMINING GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

On January 12, 2024, Petitioner XTEN Architecture, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed the instant petition to confirm contractual arbitration award against Respondents 1535 Carla Ridge of Louisiana, LLC (“1535 Carla Ridge”) and David Schwartz. Petitioner seeks to confirm an arbitration award issued on August 21, 2023. (Pet., ¶¶ 7-8, Attachment 8(c).) Petitioner indicates that the petition and the settlement are only as to Petitioner and 1535 Carla Ridge. (Pet, ¶ 8(b)(4).)

The proof of service attached to the Petition appears to indicate that the Petition was served via electronic service on January 12, 2024. In addition, on February 29, 2024, Petitioner filed and served an amended notice of hearing indicating that the petition to confirm arbitration award has been set for hearing on April 19, 2024. No opposition to the petition was filed.

On January 29, 2024, Petitioner filed an application for an order determining good faith settlement. Petitioner seeks an order determining that the settlement between 1535 Carla Ridge and Petitioner is in good faith. No opposition to the application was filed.

“Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to

confirm, correct or vacate the award. The petition shall name as respondents all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award.”

“A petition under this chapter shall: (a) Set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless the petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement. (b) Set forth the names of the arbitrators. (c) Set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4.) “If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made…unless in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.) Any response to the petition is required to be filed and served within 10 days after service of the petition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1290.6.)

The Court finds that Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.4 by attaching a copy of the underlying agreement to arbitrate (Pet., ¶ 4, Attachment 4(b)), by setting forth the name of the arbitrator (Pet. ¶ 6), and by attaching a copy of the arbitration award between Petitioner and 1535 Carla Ridge. (Pet., ¶ 8, Attachment 8(c)).

Based on the foregoing, and in light of the lack of a response to the petition, the Court finds good cause to confirm the award as made.

“[Code of Civil Procedure] Section 877.6 was enacted by the Legislature in 1980 to establish a statutory procedure for determining if a settlement by an alleged joint tortfeasor has been entered into in good faith and to provide a bar to claims of other alleged joint tortfeasors for equitable contribution or partial or comparative indemnity when good faith is shown.” (Irm Corp. v. Carlson (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 94, 104.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that, on noticed motion, “[a]ny party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(1).) “The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).)

“A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (c).)

In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499, the California Supreme Court identified the following nonexclusive factors courts are to consider in determining if a settlement is in good faith under section 877.6: “a rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial. Other relevant considerations include the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants, as well as the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.” The evaluation of whether a settlement was made in good faith is required to “be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement.” (Ibid.)

Significantly, when the good faith nature of a settlement is uncontested, the Court need not consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.) “[W]hen no one objects, the barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is sufficient.” (Ibid.)

Petitioner submits the declaration of its counsel, who states that “Respondent 1535 CARLA RIDGE OF LOUISIANA, LLC (‘RESPONDENT’) filed a its [sic] Demand for Arbitration with AAA on March 14, 2022 alleging design/construction defect and negligence claims against Petitioner XTEN (architect) and Respondent David Schwartz (construction manager).” (Lee Decl., ¶ 3.) Petitioner’s counsel states that “[o]n or about July 18, 2023, a settlement was reached only as to and between XTEN and RESPONDENT Carla Ridge,” and that “[o]n August 21, 2023, AAA Arbitrator Matthew Argue Esq. signed, issued and served the Arbitration/Consent award (re RESPONDENT and XTEN’s settlement) on all parties.” (Lee Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.)

Petitioner’s counsel states that “[t]he basis, terms and amount of XTEN’s Settlement are as follows: XTEN agrees to pay RESPONDENT TWO HUNDRED AND FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($205,000.00) in exchange for dismissal and release of any and all pending claims by RESPONDENT Carla Ridge against XTEN (in Arbitration or otherwise) and each party to bear its own costs and attorney fees. The terms of the settlement are contingent on the Court’s determination that the XTEN Settlement is in good faith.” (Lee Decl., ¶ 7.)

Petitioner’s counsel further states that “in this arbitration matter, XTEN had many factual/contractual/legal and statute of limitations defenses to RESPONDENT’s allegations and all causes of action asserted by RESPONDENT against XTEN are time barred.” (Lee Decl., ¶ 8, emphasis omitted.) Petitioner asserts that accordingly, its payment of $205,000.00 is greater than a rough approximation of Petitioner’s liability and is within the ballpark of what Plaintiff might recover at trial. (Lee Decl., ¶ 8.) Petitioner’s counsel also asserts that “there is no evidence of any collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct between the Settling Parties and the Plaintiff aimed at making the non-settling parties pay more than their fair share. The settlement between Settling Parties was reached through arms-length negotiations…” (Lee Decl., ¶ 8.)

The Court finds that the unopposed application describes the background of this case, details the nature of the proposed settlement, and provides sufficient reasoning as to why the settlement was reached in good faith. All indications are that the settlement was reached as a result of arm’s length negotiations between the settling parties.

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Petitioner’s petition to confirm contractual arbitration award. The Court orders Petitioner to file and serve a proposed order pertaining to the petition within 10 days of the date of this Order.

The Court also grants Petitioner’s application for an order determining good faith settlement. The Court notes that the fourth paragraph of Petitioner’s proposed order submitted on January 29, 2024 contains language that is broader than Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (c). The Court orders Petitioner to file and serve a revised proposed order in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (c) within 10 days of this Order.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50