Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 22STCV15408, Date: 2023-01-10 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.
Case Number: 22STCV15408 Hearing Date: January 10, 2023 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: January 10, 2023
CASE NAME: Irene Przebinda v. Windsor Gardens Convalescent Hospital, Inc., et al.
CASE NO.: 22STCV15408
MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT
MOVING PARTY: Defendant SNP Pharmacy, LLC
RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of January 5, 2023
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. An order determining that the settlement between the parties was entered in good faith
TENTATIVE RULING:
1. The Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is Granted
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On May 9, 2022, Plaintiff Irene Przebinda (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Windsor Gardens Convalescent Hospital, Inc., S & F Management Company, LLC, Doe Management Company 1-10, John T. Liu, M.D., Doe Physicians 1-50, SNP Pharmacy, LLC dba Skilled Nursing Pharmacy, Doe Pharmacy 1-50, and Doe Pharmacists 1-50 (“Defendants.”) The complaint alleges one cause of action for general negligence. The complaint alleges that Defendants caused the death of Plaintiff’s Mother, Sophia Gross, by abusing and neglecting her.
On June 7, 2022, Defendant Liu filed an Answer.
On June 10, 2022, Defendant SNP Pharmacy filed a Demurrer with Motion to Strike.
On August 11, 2022, Defendants filed a Notice of Related Case as to Case No. 22STCV15487.
On August 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.
On September 8, 2022, Defendant Windsor Gardens Convalescent Hospital, Inc., S & F Management Company, LLC, filed an Answer.
On September 12, 2022, Defendant Liu filed an Answer.
On September 16, 2022, Defendant SNP Pharmacy filed an Answer.
On December 6, 2022, Defendant SNP Pharmacy filed a Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement. As of January 5, 2023, no opposition has been filed.
LEGAL STANDARD
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.
(192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1260-1261 [citation omitted].)
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.”
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.)
ANALYSIS:
Defendant SNP Pharmacy, LLC dba Skilling Nursing Pharmacy move to have the court determine that the settlement agreement was entered in good faith.
1. Burden:
“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, Plaintiff has the burden to prove that the good faith settlement should be denied. As of January 5, 2023, no opposition has been filed.
2. Factors:
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.”
3. Analysis:
This matter concerns the treatment of Sophia Gross, Plaintiff’s mother, while residing in the skilled nursing facility, Windsor Gardens Convalescent Hospital. Defendant SNP is a licensed pharmacy that “rendered pharmacy services to Windsor Gardens Convalescent Hospital and its residents.” (Motion 2: 14-21.)
One factor is the proportionate liability. Defendant argues that the proportion of liability and approximation of Plaintiff’s total recovery indicates that the settlement is in good faith. (Motion 7: 26-28; Dec. Hassell ¶¶ 8-12.) Here, Plaintiff’s potential special damages are limited: $1,192.00 for funeral costs, $18,147.78 for charges to Windsor Gardens, $9,836.10 for Medicare lien. (Motion 8: 15-20.) Additionally, Defendant argues that general damages were limited to due Ms. Gross’s condition: she had dementia and was in a coma. (Motion 9: 1-3; FAC ¶ 27 & 56.) Moreover, Defendant denies liability, asserts that it provided the requisite standard of care, and disputes causation due to Ms. Gross’s advanced age of 94. (Motion 9: 13-23.)
A second factor is the settlement amount. Here, the settlement amount is stated in the Unredacted Declaration of Jennifer Hassel. This value “is generous considering the weaknesses in Plaintiff’s case against Defendant, application of MICRA to Plaintiff’s claims, and limited potential general and special damages.” (Motion 10: 26-28.)
Another factor is a “recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after trial.” (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d 488 at pg. 499). Defendant argues that because the parties chose to settle rather than continue the litigation and incur additional fees and costs, this was done in good faith, especially given the weaknesses of Plaintiff’s claims. (Motion 11: 6-9.) The settlement is proportionate and within the “ball park range” of the share of liability. (Id. at 12-13.)
Lastly, another factor is that the settlement negotiations were done with a third-party neutral without fraud or collusion. Here, Defendant argues that there was no collusion, fraud, or other tortious conduct as the negotiations were completed at arm’s length, co-defendants were informed of the settlement, and the parties “are not aware of any harm which the settlement could cause to the non-settlement co-defendants.” (Motion 11: 23-28, Dec. Hassel ¶ 18.)
The Tech-Bilt factors have been satisfied. The parties engaged in a fair mediation, with no evidence of tortious conduct. The proposed settlement is fair. Defendant’s proportionate liability is low, given the condition of Ms. Gross and Defendant’s conduct during Ms. Gross’s time at Windsor Gardens. A trial would incur additional fees and costs. Lastly, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.
Conclusion:
For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 10, 2023 _________________________________ Upinder S. Kalra
Judge of the Superior Court