Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 22STC36230, Date: 2024-08-20 Tentative Ruling

On November 16, 2022, Plaintiffs Lucila Raquel Maravilla Aguillon, Walter Javier Maldonado Orellana, Fabian Soto Aguirre, Kaira Yailyn Rodriguez (a minor by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Lucila Raquel Maravilla Aguillon), Jade Yaxelly Rodriguez (a minor by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Lucila Raquel Maravilla Aguillon), and Scarlett Crismari Maldonado Rodriguez (a minor by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Lucila Raquel Maravilla Aguillon) filed this habitability action.

On July 17, 2024, Defendants Parallax Properties LLC or Xenon Investment Corp. filed an application for determination of good faith settlement.

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 according 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. Under the settlement, Defendants will pay Plaintiffs a confidential sum that takes into account waiver of more than $23,000 of back rent. (Citron Decl. ¶ 13.) Defendants understand that the settlement sum is larger or the same amount reached by and between Temeku and Plaintiffs. (Citron Decl. ¶ 14.) Defendants believe that liability, if any, would have been attributed primarily to Temeku, and Plaintiffs proffered very limited evidence to support their claim for damages. (Citron Decl. ¶¶ 11, 15.) Counsel declares that the settlement was the result of good faith negotiations and does not involve any collusion or wrongful conduct. (Citron Decl. ¶ 17.) The Court also finds that there is no evidence of collusion or fraud in the settlement. No party opposed the motion.

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 Parallax Properties LLC or Xenon Investment Corp., for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court