Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case Number: 20STCV46963, Date: 2024-03-19 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Brandon Min

1. An Order determining Good Faith Settlement between Plaintiff and Defendant Yunhee Min.

On December 8, 2020, Plaintiff City of Los Angeles, Acting by and through the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendant Yunhee Min with three causes of action for: (1) Account Stated, (2) Book Account, and (3) Goods and Services Rendered. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant owed $59,134.92 for water, sewer, electric and/or solid waste/resource services.

On May 28, 2021, Defendant filed an Answer and a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants City of Los Angeles, Chris Min, Brandon Min, and Jeffrey Siegel as Administrator of the Estate of Byung Ok Min with four causes of action for: (1) Damages and Other Relief Pursuant to Civil Code § 1798.93, (2) Equitable Indemnity, (3) Contribution, and (4) Violations of Penal Code § 530.5. According to the Cross-Complaint, Cross-Defendants fraudulently opened an account in Cross-Complainant’s name with the LADWP. Cross-Complainant also alleges that she only has a 15% ownership interest in the Property.

On July 1, 2021, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant City of Los Angeles filed an Answer to the Cross-Complaint.

On July 26, 2021, Cross-Defendant Chris Sung Hoon Min filed an Answer to the Cross-Complaint.

On July 27, 2021, Chris Min filed a Cross-Complaint against the City of Los Angeles, Acting by and Through the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Yunhee Min, and Jeffrey Siegel as Administrator of the Estate of Byung Ok Min with four causes of action for: (1) Damages and Other Relief, (2) Equitable Indemnity, (3) Contribution, and (4) Violations of Penal Code 487(a). According to the Cross-Complaint, Cross-Complainant is the victim of grand theft. He also alleges that the individual cross-defendants had not paid their share of LADWP fees.

On August 18, 2021, Cross-Defendant Chris Sung Hoon Min filed another Answer to the Cross-Complaint.

On August 19, 2021, Cross-Defendant Brandon Min filed an Answer to the Cross-Complaint and a Cross-Complaint against the City of Los Angeles, Acting by and Through the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Yunhee Min, and Jeffrey Siegel as Administrator of the Estate of Byung Ok Min with four causes of action for: (1) Damages and Other Relief, (2) Equitable Indemnity, (3) Contribution, and (4) Violations of Penal Code 487(a). According to this Cross-Complaint, Cross-Defendant Yunhee Min committed grand theft against him and lied about the nature of a partition action for the Property.

On August 25, 2021, Cross-Defendant Jeffrey Siegel as Administrator of the Estate of Byung Ok Min filed an Answer to Chris Min’s Cross-Complaint.

On August 30, 2021, Cross-Defendant Jeffrey Siegal as Administrator of the Estate of Byung Ok Min filed a General Denial to Yunhee Min’s Cross-Complaint.

On August 31, 2021, Cross-Defendant LADWP filed an Answer to Brandon Min’s Cross-Complaint.

On September 2, 2021, Plaintiff requested entry of default as to Defendant Brandon Min which was granted that same date.

On September 27, 2021, Cross-Defendant Yunhee Min filed a demurrer to Chris Min’s Cross-Complaint which was sustained with leave to amend.

On October 22, 2021, Cross-Defendant Yunhee Min filed a demurrer to Brandon Min’s Cross-Complaint which was sustained without leave to amend.

On February 25, 2022, Cross-Complainant Chris Min filed a Verified First Amended Cross-Complaint.

On April 12, 2022, Cross-Defendant Jeffrey Siegel as Administrator of the Estate of Byung Ok Min filed an Answer to Chris Min’s First Amended Cross-Complaint.

On May 6, 2022, Cross-Defendant Yunhee Min filed a demurrer and motion to strike Chris Min’s First Amended Cross-Complaint which was SUSTAINED as to the first cause of action without leave to amend. The motion to strike was denied as moot.

On May 13, 2022, Cross-Defendant LADWP filed an Answer to Chris Min’s First Amended Cross-Complaint.

On September 6, 2022, Cross-Defendant Yunhee Min filed an Answer to Chris Min’s First Amended Cross-Complaint and Brandon Min’s Cross-Complaint.

On January 19, 2024, Defendant Yunhee Min filed the instant Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement. On March 11, 2024, Cross-Complainant Brandon Min filed an untimely opposition.[1] On March 13, 2024, Yunhee Min filed a reply.

California Code of Civil Procedure section¿877.6, subdivision¿(a)(1),¿provides, in relevant part, that, on noticed motion, “[a]ny¿party to an action wherein it is alleged that two or more parties are joint¿tortfeasors¿or co-obligors on a contract debt shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff¿. . . and one or more alleged¿tortfeasors¿or co-obligors¿. . . .”¿¿“A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint¿tortfeasor¿or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling¿tortfeasor¿or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.”¿¿(Code Civ. Proc.,¿§ 877.6, subd.¿(c).)¿¿Although a determination that a settlement was in good faith does not discharge any other party from liability, “it shall reduce the claims against the others in the amount stipulated” by the settlement.¿¿(Code Civ. Proc.,¿§ 877, subd.¿(a).)¿

“The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.”¿¿(Code Civ. Proc.,¿§ 877.6, subd.¿(d).)¿

In¿City of Grand View Terrace v. Superior Court¿(1987)¿192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261, the court provided the following guidance regarding a motion for a good faith settlement determination:¿

This court notes that of the hundreds of motions for good faith determination presented for trial court approval each year, the overwhelming majority are unopposed and granted summarily by the trial court.¿ At the time of filing in many cases, the moving party does not know if a contest will develop.¿ If each motion required a full recital by declaration or affidavit setting forth a complete factual response to all of the¿Tech-Bilt¿factors, literally thousands of attorney hours would be consumed and inch-thick motions would have to be read and considered by¿trial courts in an exercise which would waste valuable judicial and legal time and clients’ resources. . .. That is to say, when no one objects, the barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is sufficient.¿

If the good faith settlement is contested, section 877.6, subdivision (d), sets forth a workable ground rule for the hearing by placing the burden of proving the lack of good faith on the contesting party.¿¿Once there is a showing made by the settlor of the settlement, the burden of proof on the issue of good faith shifts to the¿nonsettlor¿who asserts that the settlement was not made in good faith.¿¿If contested, declarations by the¿nonsettlor¿should be filed which in many cases could require the moving party to file responsive¿counterdeclarations¿to negate the lack of good faith asserted by the¿nonsettling¿contesting party.¿

In¿Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates¿(1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499, the California Supreme Court identified the following nonexclusive factors courts are to consider in determining if a settlement is in good faith under section 877.6: “a rough approximation of plaintiffs’¿total recovery and the settlor's proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial.¿¿Other relevant considerations include the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants,¿as well as the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of¿nonsettling¿defendants.”¿ Not every factor will apply in each case. (Dole Food Co., Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (Shell Oil Co.) (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 894, 909.)

The evaluation of whether a settlement was made in good faith is required to “be made¿on the basis of¿information available at the time of settlement.”¿¿(Tech-Bilt, Inc.,¿supra,¿38¿Cal.3d at¿p.¿499.)¿¿“‘[A] defendant’s settlement figure must not be grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person, at the time of the settlement, would estimate the settling defendant’s liability to be.’ [Citation.]”¿¿(Ibid.)¿

“The party asserting the lack of good faith, who has the burden of proof on that issue (§ 877.6,¿subd. (d)), should be permitted to demonstrate, if he can, that the settlement is so far¿‘out of the ballpark’¿in relation to these factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of¿the statute.¿¿Such a demonstration would establish that the proposed settlement was not a¿‘settlement made in good faith’¿within the terms of section 877.6.”¿¿(Id.¿at pp. 499-500.)¿

“[A] court not only looks at the alleged tortfeasor's potential liability to the plaintiff, but¿it must also consider the culpability of the tortfeasor vis-à-vis other parties alleged to be responsible for the same injury.¿ Potential liability for indemnity to a nonsettling defendant is an important consideration for the trial court in determining whether to approve a settlement by an alleged tortfeasor.¿ [Citation.]”¿ (TSI Seismic Tenant Space, Inc. v. Superior Court¿(2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 159, 166.)¿

Defendant Yunhee contends the settlement with LADWP is in good faith because it satisfies the Tech-Bilt factors and, importantly, is relative to their proportionate share of the Property. Defendant Brandon Min argues LADWP had previously claimed Yunhee’s cross-complaint was baseless but now offers to settle. Defendant Brandon Min does not oppose the settlement of LADWP’s Complaint.[2]

“The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.”¿¿(Code Civ. Proc.,¿§ 877.6,¿subd.¿(d).)¿Here, Defendant Brandon Min is the only party opposing this settlement. He therefore bears the burden to prove that the good faith settlement should be denied.

To determine whether settlement has been in good faith, courts look at certain factors. In¿Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates¿(1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499, the California Supreme Court identified the following nonexclusive factors courts are to consider in determining if a settlement is in good faith under section 877.6: “a rough approximation of plaintiffs’¿total recovery and the settlor's proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial.¿¿Other relevant considerations include the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants,¿as well as the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of¿nonsettling¿defendants.”

Defendant Yunhee is settling the LADWP bill for her proportionate share of the Property and LADWP has agreed to settle Yunhee’s Cross-Complaint against it for $24,000. Defendant Brandon has not challenged the settlement of LADWP’s Complaint, but contends, without evidence, that LADWP’s settlement of Yunhee’s Cross-Complaint is somehow suspicious because it is “generous.” The settlement is not suspicious because Defendant Yunhee is settling for her proportionate share of liability.

As above, Defendant Yunhee is settling with LADWP for her proportionate share of the bill. Additionally, Defendant Yunhee has already paid other outstanding bills from LADWP. (Correll Decl., Ex. 1, pg. 1.) Defendant Brandon does not challenge this either.

Based on the facts of this case, this factor does not apply because Defendant Yunhee is settling for her proportionate share of LADWP’s bill.

This factor does not apply because Defendant Yunhee’s financial condition or insurance coverage is not at issue here.

Factor 6: Evidence of Collusion, Fraud, or Tortious Conduct Between Settlor and Plaintiffs Aimed at Making the Nonsettling Parties Pay More than Their Fair Share

Here, there is no evidence of fraud or collusion. The settlement was negotiated by counsel and conducted in good faith. (Correll Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendant Yunhee is paying her proportionate share and Defendant Brandon has indicated that he has the same settlement with LADWP. As such, the court is hard pressed to find Settling Defendants are somehow forcing the nonsettling parties to pay more than their fair share.[3]

[1] The court exercises its discretion to consider Defendant Brandon’s opposition on the merits. (Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, canon 3B(8).) Additionally, Defendant Yunhee was able to sufficiently reply to Defendant Brandon’s opposition.

[2] Indeed, he notes that his settlement agreement with LADWP mirrors Yunhee’s. (Opp. 3:1-3.)

[3] Defendant Brandon has indicated that Defendant Chris is settling with LADWP for $1,000.00 which is significantly less than Defendant Yunhee paid despite having the same 15% ownership interest in the Property. (Opp. 3:4-9.)