Judge Thomas Falls, Case 21STCV17437 2023-05-03 Tentative Ruling

DEFENDANTS/CROSSDEFENDANTS’ APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT ORDER

DEFENDANTS/CROSSDEFENDANTS’ APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT ORDER is GRANTED.

This is a negligence case. Plaintiffs MELISSA MOORS (wife) and KAYLEAH MOORS (daughter) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring forth the instant action for the death of Julian Moore (“decedent”) who was struck when the wheel of Defendant ALBERT BENJAMIN ESQUDA’s vehicle detached and struck decedent’s motorcycle.

On September 28, 2022, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants ALBERT BENJAMIN ESQUEDA; ANGELINA ULLOA; ADRIANA SIORDIA JIMENEZ; MARIO SIORDIA JIMENEZ; IN AND OUT TIRE, LLC a limited liability; EMS DISTRIBUTING LLC d/b/a ELEMENT WHEELS .COM (sued herein as DOE 1); EMS DISTRIBUTING, LLC, d/b/a ) ELEMENT WHEELS, (sued herein as DOE 2); ) and AFFORDABLE WHEEL REPAIR (sued ) herein as DOE 3) for: 1. NEGLIGENCE 2. NEGLIGENCE PER SE 3. STRICT LIABILITY 4. PRODUCT LIABILITY and 5. SURVIVOR ACTION.

On February 24, 2023, Defendants/Cross-Defendants ADRIANA SIORDIA JIMENEZ and MARIO SIORDIA JIMENEZ (collectively as the “Jimenez Defendants”) filed the instant motion.[1]

Under section 877.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, “[a] determination by the court that [a] settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor . . . from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor . . . for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (c).) “The party asserting the lack of good faith has the burden of proof on that issue.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).)

Section 877.6 requires “that the courts review [settlement] agreements made under its aegis to insure that the settlements appropriately balance the . . . statute’s dual objectives” (i.e., providing an “equitable sharing of costs among the parties at fault” and encouraging parties to resolve their disputes by way of settlement). (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 494 (hereafter, Tech-Bilt).) In Tech-Bilt, the California Supreme Court set forth the factors to consider when determining whether a settlement was made in good faith. The Tech-Bilt factors are:

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

(4) a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial;

(5) the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants; and

(6) the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of the non-settling defendants.

Plaintiffs and the Jimenez Defendants entered a $15,000 settlement, which is the amount of the bodily injury policy limit in the Jimenez Defendants’ insurance policy. The court finds that the settlement was made in good faith for the following reasons.

First, it has been held that when an insurance company for a settling defendant pays its total available policy limits, it is very strong evidence of a “good faith” settlement.[2]

Second, there is no evidence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct with Plaintiffs and the Jimenez Defendants, or their insurer aimed at making the non-settling parties pay more than their fair share.

Third, the evidence shows that there is no liability on the Jimenez Defendants. If it was not for the detached tire from Defendant Esqueda’s vehicle, then Defendant Adrianna Jimenez would have not run over decedent.

Fourth, there is no opposition, and it is the burden of any opposing party to indicate a lack of good faith.

All in all, as most there is a lack of any liability on the part of the Jimenez Defendants but they are rather settling the case to avoid continued litigation in this tragic case and there is no opposition filed to indicate that the settlement is so “far out of the ballpark,” (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at 499-501), court finds that the settlement was made in good faith.

[1] According to the complaint, Defendant ADRIANA SIORDIA JIMENEZ (“Adriana”) is and was the co-owner of the car that struck and ran over decedent. Adriana was operating the vehicle at the time. Defendant MARIO SIORDIA JIMENEZ (“Mario”) is a co-owner of the vehicle that ran over decedent.

[2] See Fisher v. Superior Court (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 434, 435 [“When the insurance company for a settling defendant pays its total available policy limits, that is very strong evidence of a ‘good faith’ settlement, absent evidence of collusion or grossly inappropriate allocation or apportionment of the settlement proceeds to injure the nonsettling alleged tortfeasors . . .Experience teaches us that insurance companies usually and ordinarily pay their policy limits only to have their insureds and themselves discharged from all liability in any given case.”].)