Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: BC572581, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC572581    Hearing Date: October 5, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

            Background

Plaintiff Intelligent SCM, LLC, dba American Worldwide Agencies (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on February 13, 2015 against Defendants Russell W. Roten (“Roten”) and Duane Morris. Plaintiff filed the operative Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on July 9, 2019 against Roten, Duane Morris, and Andrew P. Scott, alleging twelve causes of action.

On April 27, 2017, Andrew Scott (“Scott”) filed a Cross-Complaint against Alex F. Knowles, individually and for the AFK Roth IRA, Peter Lamy, Graham Burford, and Intelligent SCM, LLC, fka Intell SCM, LLC dba American Worldwide Agencies. The Cross-Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) intentional interference with contractual relationship, (2) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, (3) unfair competition, (4) declaratory relief, and (5) defamation.

On May 3, 2017, Peter Lamy and Graham Burford filed a Cross-Complaint against Scott. The Cross-Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) declaratory relief and (2) slander of title.

Scott now moves for an order determining a good faith settlement between Scott and Plaintiff, Alex F. Knowles, individually and on behalf of the AFK Roth IRA, Graham Burford, and Peter Lamy (collectively, the “ISCM Parties”). The motion is unopposed.

Discussion

“[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.” (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates, supra, at p. 499) 

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.)

Here, the unopposed motion sets forth a background of the case, discusses the nature of the proposed settlement, and provides sufficient reasoning as to why the settlement was reached in good faith. (Behle, Jr. Decl., ¶¶ 2-16.) Scott’s counsel states that “[g]iven the exposure for attorneys’ fees created by both the first and second successful special motions to strike, a liability which could total $176,461.34, I, as counsel for Scott and Howard Zelener, counsel for ISCM, began discussing settlement. As a result of those negotiations, a settlement has been reached between Scott and the ISCM Parties regarding the LA Case. The settlement includes several elements, but notably includes the compromise of the judgement entered against Scott in the Long Beach Case in exchange for a waiver of the attorneys’ fees to which Scott is entitled in connection with the first and second successful special motions to strike. The negotiations took several months and involved extensive give-and-take between the parties…the settlement resolves the nearly decade-long dispute between the parties, as reflected above, and takes into account the costs of settlement versus the costs of continuing with the cases.” (Behle, Jr. Decl, ¶ 16.) All indications are that the settlement was reached as a result of arm’s length negotiations between the settling parties.  

///

///

            Conclusion

            Based on the foregoing, Scott’s motion for an order determining good faith settlement is granted.

Scott is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED:  October 5, 2023                              ________________________________

Hon. Rolf M. Treu

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court