Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 21-1213518, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

The Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement filed by Defendants Gregory Smith and Century 21 Discovery-Fullerton, Inc. (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) is GRANTED. (C.C.P. § 877.6.)

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.)

The California Supreme Court in Tech-Bilt v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc. set forth the factors to determine good faith, which include: (1) a rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (4) the recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial; (5) the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants; and (6) the existence of collusion, fraud or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants. (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at 499-500.)

The Court has reviewed the arguments and supporting evidence and has determined that an application of the Tech-Bilt factors supports granting Moving Defendants’ motion. The Court finds that the settlement is within the “reasonable range” of Moving Defendants’ share of liability and that there is no evidence presented of collusion, fraud or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interest of nonsettling defendants.

Accordingly, the Court finds the evidence sufficient to support a finding that the settlement between Moving Defendants and Plaintiffs was made in good faith. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1263-1265.)

The Court finds opposing defendants failed to meet their burden of demonstrating lack of good faith. (C.C.P. § 877.6(d).)

Thus, the Motion is GRANTED.

Moving Defendants’ evidentiary objections are SUSTAINED.

Moving Defendants are dismissed from Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Diamond Property Investment, Inc. dba Re/Max Diamond and Joe Byon’s Cross-Complaint with prejudice. (C.C.P. § 877.6(c).)

Counsel for Moving Defendants to give notice.