Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22TCV27378, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TCV27378    Hearing Date: May 5, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     May 5, 2023               TRIAL DATE: NOT SET.

CASE:                         Jane Doe v. Apex Protection Service, Inc. et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV27378

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Apex Protection Service, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No opposition on eCourt as of May 3, 2023

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an employment discrimination action that was filed on August 23, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that the corporate Defendants allowed individual Defendant Pierre Williams to install a hidden camera in the women’s restroom at Plaintiff’s place of employment.

            Defendant Apex Protection Service, Inc. moves for a determination of good faith settlement.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Apex Protection Service, Inc’s motion for determination of good faith settlement is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant Apex Protection Service, Inc moves for a determination of good faith settlement. The basic terms of the settlement, according to the moving papers, are that Defendant will pay Plaintiff $5,000 in resolution of all claims against it. (Declaration of S. Young Lim ISO Mot. ISO Mot. ¶ 3.)

Any party to an action “in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt” is 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, upon giving notice in the manner provided in subdivision (b) of Section 1005.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6(a)(1).)

There is no precise yardstick for measuring the “good faith” of a settlement with one of several tortfeasors, but it must harmonize the public policy favoring settlements with the competing public policy favoring equitable sharing of costs among tortfeasors. (See Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.)

The nonexclusive factors considered include:

(1)               A rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability;

(2)               The amount paid in settlement;

(3)               A recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than if found liable after a trial;

(4)               The allocation of the settlement proceeds among plaintiffs;

(5)               The settlor's financial condition and insurance policy limits, if any; and

(6)        Evidence of any collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct between the settlor and the plaintiffs aimed at making the nonsettling parties pay more than their fair share.

(Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at 499; TSI Seismic Tenant Space, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 159, 165-166.)

The party contesting the settlement bears the burden of proving that it is in bad faith. (Code Civ. Proc. §877.6(d).) If the party contesting the settlement can show, with admissible evidence, that the settlement is “so far ‘out of the ballpark’ in relation to [the above-referenced factors] as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute,” then the court should find the settlement to be lacking in good faith. (Id. at 499-500.) If no such showing is made, the settlement should be deemed to be in good faith and the settlor is entitled to an order barring any further claims by any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor for “equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity” and/or an order dismissing any such claims. (Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6(c).)

Here, no party has contested the settlement.

1.      Rough Approximation of Liability

Defendant contends that its total liability arising from Pierre’s conduct is disputed, as Defendant anticipates that, if not for the settlement, it would have been added to the first cause of action for violation of Government Code section 12940(k), the second cause of action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the third cause of action for violation of Government Code section 12948, which might have exposed it to punitive damages. (Declaration of Raymond Choe ISO Mot. ¶ 9(a).) Defendant does not provide a numerical estimation of its total potential liability, though its statement that the liability is within range of the amount of the settlement is made under penalty of perjury. (Id. ¶ 10.)

2.      Amount Paid in Settlement

Defendant has entered into a settlement with Plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000. (Choe Decl. ¶ 8.) As the motion is unopposed, no party has disputed the amount of the settlement or its relative value.

3.      Recognition that Settlor Should Pay Less in Settlement Than if Found Liable After Trial

Defendant contends that, if it were found to be liable, that its share of damages would be “within the reasonable range” of the settlement figure. (Choe Decl. ¶ 9(a).) Again, Defendant does not provide a numerical estimation of its total liability to show whether Defendant would be paying less than it would have after trial though its statement that the liability is within range of the amount of the settlement is made under penalty of perjury.

4.      Allocation of Settlement

No allocation is necessary, as there is only one Plaintiff in this action.

5.      Settlor’s Financial Condition and Insurance Policy Limits

Defendant states under penalty of perjury that it does not have insurance to cover Plaintiff’s claims, and, if there were a judgment against it, the business would be forced to close. (Choe Decl. ¶ 9(d).)

6.      Evidence of Collusion, Fraud, or Tortious Conduct

No party has made any allegations of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct on the part of any of the settling parties, nor is there any evidence of such conduct.

Thus, having reviewed the papers submitted, the statements offered under penalty of perjury, the lack of opposition to this settlement, and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case and the factors enumerated in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, the Court concludes that the settlement was made in good faith.

The settlement, having been made and entered into in good faith, shall have the full effect set out under California Code of Civil Procedure § 877, including but not limited to discharging Defendant Apex Protection Service, Inc from all liability for any contribution to any other parties.

            Moving party to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  May 5, 2023                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at  Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing.  All interested parties must be copied on the email.  It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.