Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 19-1106355, Date: 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling

The Motion by Finishing Touch Moulding, Inc. (“FTM”) in Opposition to Cross-Defendant SouthCo,Inc.’s Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is DENIED and the Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement by SouthCo, Inc. is GRANTED.

As to a good faith determination, there is no precise yardstick for measuring “good faith” of a settlement with one of several tortfeasors. But a court must harmonize the public policy favoring settlements with the competing public policy favoring equitable sharing of costs among tortfeasors. To accomplish this, the settlement must be within the “reasonable range” (within the “ballpark”) of the settling tortfeasor’s share of liability for the plaintiff’s injuries. (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.) Even a settlement that seems disproportionately low may be justified by showing that damages or liability are speculative, or that a settling defendant was uninsured, underinsured or insolvent. (Id.)  The burden of proof on the issue of good faith is on the non-settlor who asserts that the settlement was not made in good faith. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.)  Good faith depends upon what was known at the time of settlement. (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at 499 [“practical considerations obviously require that the evaluation be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement.”].)

SouthCo has submitted evidence as to how the accident occurred and its liability defense.  Evidence consists of an expert declaration, a declaration of counsel, deposition transcripts and documents exchanged in discovery.  SouthCo submits evidence that the information FTM gave it regarding the size and weight of the bar-bridge was inaccurate.  SouthCo further submits evidence that it made clear to FTM, prior to delivery of the CAS-327, that the size and weight of the bar-bridge was important because a lighter or smaller bar-bridge would need to have a CAS-326.  FTM states that it ordered the CAS-327 before the bar-bridge was built and relied on estimates which it contends was appropriate.  However, when the bar bridge was finally built, and before installing the CAS-327, they had an opportunity to  weigh and measure the bar-bridge, and if they had done so, SouthCo submits evidence that  FTM would have discovered that the CAS-327 was not the correct product to use.

SouthCo submits evidence that it reached an agreement with plaintiff at a mediation with Peter Searle at which all parties were present.  The amount agreed to be paid was $250,000.  The settlement was reached after a lengthy and apparently hard fought litigation.

FTM’s late filed Reply is considered by the Court.

FTM’s objections to the declaration of Richard T. Mumper are sustained as to the text stated in numbers 1 (¶7) and 3 (¶11) and overruled as to the rest.

FTM’s objections to the declaration of Jon Turigliatto are sustained as to the text stated in numbers 2 (¶7) and 7 (¶9) and overruled as to the rest.

The Court finds SouthCo has submitted substantial evidence to support a finding that its settlement with plaintiff was in good faith pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §877.6.  In consideration of the foregoing, and in light of the general public policy favoring settlements, SouthCo, Inc.’s Application is therefore GRANTED, while FTM’s Motion is DENIED

Counsel for SouthCo, Inc. to give notice.