Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 25STCV05671, Date: 2025-05-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 25STCV05671 Hearing Date: May 22, 2025 Dept: 47
On April 23, 2025, Defendants
Beverly and Company, Inc., dba Beverly & Co., and Albert Granados submitted
an application for a determination of good faith settlement in accordance with
C.C.P. section 877.6(a)(2), and set it for hearing on May 22, 2025. The
basic terms of the settlement, according to the moving papers, are that
Defendants will pay $75,000 in resolution of all claims against them, with each
side to bear their own costs of litigation. (Declaration of Lorena Roel, ¶ 13.)
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).)
Defendants gave notice of their
application for determination of good faith settlement via certified mail on
April 23, 2025 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6(a)(2).
No party has objected to the application contesting the good faith nature of
the proposed settlement. Plaintiff has filed an objection to certain
language in Defendants’ proposed order. In response, Defendants agreed to
the modifications demanded by Plaintiff and submitted a revised order for the
Court’s signature.
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 lacks
sufficient information to conclude that the settlement was made in good faith.
Reviewing the Tech-Bilt factors, the Court notes that it has been
provided with the amount to be paid in settlement, some information about
Defendants’ minimal involvement in the alleged misconduct, and evidence of an
arms’-length negotiation at a formal mediation, but has been given no evidence
or information showing a rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery or
Defendants’ proportionate liability. Accordingly, the Court orders
Defendants to submit a supplemental declaration by May 30, 2025 addressing
these factors.
The Court sets a non-appearance
case review for June 5, 2025 to review the supplemental declaration and issue a
ruling on this matter.
Defendants are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling.