Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 20STCV01116, Date: 2023-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV01116    Hearing Date: February 23, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On July 27, 2020, Roy Silver and Meredith Rettinger filed a first amended complaint against A.G. Properties, Inc. (“AG”) and Jonathan Silver.

On August 26, 2020, AG and Jonathan Silver filed a cross-complaint against Secure Sheet Metal, Inc., Blue Line Plumbing, Inc., H&R Construction and Surfacing, Inc. (“H&R”), Maya Construction and Landscape (“Maya”), and Sunny Landscape.  Blue Line Plumbing, Inc. was dismissed on November 24, 2020.  Secure Sheet Metal, Inc. and H&R Construction and Surfacing, Inc. settled with AG and Jonathan Silver, and on February 22, 2022, the Court granted their motions for determination of good faith settlement.  Secure Sheet Metal, Inc. was dismissed on April 27, 2022, and H&R was dismissed on May 2, 2022.

On April 8, 2021, H&R filed a cross-complaint against Moe Defendants.  The cross-complaint was dismissed on May 3, 2022.

On December 22, 2022, Maya filed an application for determination of good faith settlement with Roy Silver and Meredith Rettinger.

AG and Jonathan Silver filed a notice of motion objecting to and contesting the good faith settlement, which they later withdrew.  Accordingly, the Hearing on Motion to Challenge the Good Faith of a Settlement (CCP 877.6) of Cross-Defendant Maya Construction & Landscape as to Cross-Complainants A.G. Properties, Inc. and Jonathan Silver is OFF CALENDAR.

On December 29, 2022, Roy Silver and Meredith Rettinger filed a notice of partial settlement with AG and Jonathan Silver.

Any party to an action with two or more joint tortfeasors may petition the court for a determination of the issue of the good faith of a settlement.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(1).)  The court’s approval of the settlement furthers two sometimes-competing policies: (1) the equitable sharing of costs among the parties at fault, and (2) the encouragement of settlements.  (Erreca’s v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1487.)  To demonstrate a lack of good faith, a non-settling party must show that the settlement is so far “out of the ballpark” as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of Section 877.6.  (Nutrition Now, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 209, 213.)  The Court will typically consider: (1) the plaintiff’s (roughly) approximated total recovery; (2) the settlor’s share of liability; (3) the size of the settlement at issue; (4) the distribution of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (5) the usual discount value when plaintiffs settle before trial; the settlor’s financial condition and insurance policy limits; and (6) whether there is evidence of “collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.”  (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.)  These factors will be evaluated accordingly to what information is available at the time of settlement.  (Ibid.)  “When no one objects, the barebones motion which sets forth the ground for good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is sufficient” for the Court to grant a motion for determination of good faith settlement.  (City of Grand Terrace, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d at p. 1261.)

The motion and counsel’s declaration set out the background of this case and the terms of the settlement.  Maya will pay $5,000 to Roy Silver and Meredith Rettinger, and in exchange, they will release any and all claims regarding the subject matter of this lawsuit, including a waiver of Civil Code section 1542.  (Marton Decl. ¶ 9.)  The recovery is reasonable based on the parties’ agreement that Maya has only minimal, if any, liability.  (Id. at ¶¶ 7, 9, 11.)  This settlement was reached through counsel’s good faith negotiations over a period of months.  (Id. at ¶¶ 8, 13.)  There is no evidence of collusion or fraud in the settlement.

Based on the record presented and the lack of any objection, the Court GRANTS the application, finds this settlement was made in good faith, and orders that any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor is barred from asserting further claims against Maya Construction and Landscape for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

         Dated this 23rd day of February 2023