Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV22902, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22902    Hearing Date: February 27, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On July 15, 2022, Plaintiff Christina Fulton filed this legal malpractice action against Defendant Samantha Gold and others.

On January 30, 2024, Defendant filed a motion 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, Defendant will pay $6,000 to Plaintiff with mutual releases.  (Finnerty Decl. ¶ 2.)  “While each side believes they have strong and legitimate claims/defenses, both sides also agree that their respective incentives and risk exposure of each of the Settling Parties has dramatically changed, rendering their settlement more advantageous.”  (Finnerty Decl. ¶ 5; see Finnerty Decl. ¶ 7.)  Counsel for both parties had arms-length negotiations.  (Finnerty Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.)  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 Samantha Gold 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.  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.

         Dated this 27th day of February 2024