Judge Virginia Keeny, Case 19STCV15629 2022-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 19STCV15629, Date: 2022-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV15629 Hearing Date: October 3, 2022 Dept: W

MICHAEL ALLEN DENNY v. TUUYEN NGUYEN, et al.

MOTION for determination of good faith settlement between defendants hoang ba nguyen, tuuyen nguyen, and maihuong jordan and plaintiff michael allen denny

Date of Hearing: October 3, 2022 Trial Date: October 17, 2022

Department: W Case No.: 19STCV15629

Moving Party: Defendants Hoang Ba Nguyen, Tuuyen Nguyen, and Maihuong Jordan

Responding Party: None.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from a motor vehicle collision. On or about June 30, 2017, Tuuyen Nguyen was operating a 2011 Honda Pilot (“Subject Vehicle”) on Interstate-101 South near the Woodman Avenue exit in Los Angeles, California. The Subject Vehicle was owned by Hoang Ba Nguyen. The Subject Vehicle was towing a trailer (“Trailer”), which was owned by Maihuong Joran and manufactured by an entity known as HLT Limited. While Tuuyen Nguyen was operating the Subject Vehicle, and towing the Trailer, a wheel of the Trailer came loose and struck Michael Allen Denny (“Plaintiff”) who was riding his motorcycle on Interstate-101. Plaintiff suffered serious injuries.

On May 6, 2019, Plaintiff commenced the present action by filing a Complaint against Tuuyen Nguyen (driver of the Subject Vehicle), Hoang Ba Nguyen (owner of the Subject Vehicle), Maihuong Jordan (owner of the Trailer), Dien Huong, and Does 1 through 50. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence; and (2) General Negligence.

On July 5, 2019, Defendants Hoang Ba Nguyen and Tuuyen Nguyen filed a Cross-Complaint against Dien Huong, Maihuong Jordan, and Roes 1 through 50. The Cross-Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Indemnity; (2) Partial Indemnity; (3) Contribution; (4) Apportionment; and (5) Declaratory Relief.

On September 5, 2019, Defendant and Cross-Defendant Maihuong Jordan filed a Cross-Complaint against Defendants and Cross-Complainants Hoang Ba Nguyen, Tuuyen Nguyen, and Roes 1 through 25. The Cross-Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Indemnification; (2) Apportionment of Fault; and (3) Declaratory Relief.

On November 12, 2020, Plaintiff dismissed Defendant Dien Huong from the action, without prejudice.

On December 4, 2020, after obtaining leave of Court, Defendants, Cross-Complainants, and Cross-Defendants Hoang Ba Nguyen and Tuuyen Nguyen filed a second Cross-Complaint (not a First Amended Cross-Complaint) solely against HLT Limited, pursuant to a theory of products liability. The secondary Cross-Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Equitable Indemnity; (2) Contribution; (3) Apportionment of Fault; and (4) Declaratory Relief.

On December 7, 2020, after obtaining leave of Court, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint, adding HLT Limited as a Defendant, and alleging the following causes of action: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence; (2) General Negligence; (3) Products Liability; and (4) General Negligence.

On December 22, 2020, Defendants, Cross-Complainants, and Cross-Defendants Hoang Ba Nguyen and Tuuyen Nguyen dismissed Cross-Defendant Dien Hoang from the Cross-Complaint filed on July 5, 2019.

On February 8, 2021, Defendant, Cross-Complainant, and Cross-Defendant Maihuong Jordan filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint against Hoang Ba Nguyen, Tuuyen Nguyen, HLT Limited and Roes 1 through 75. The First Amended Cross-Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Indemnification; (2) Apportionment of Fault; (3) Declaratory Relief; (4) Motor Vehicle Negligence; and (5) Products Liability.

On September 16, 2022, Defendants, Cross-Complainants, and Cross-Defendants Hoang Ba Nguyen, Tuuyen Nguyen, and Maihuong Jordan, collectively, filed an Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time for Determination of Good Faith Settlement Between Defendants Hoang Ba Nguyen, Tuuyen Nguyen, and Maihuong Nguyen and Plaintiff (hereinafter, “Ex Parte Application”).

On September 19, 2022, the aforementioned Ex Parte Application came before the Court for consideration. Following consideration of the arguments of all parties, the Court granted the Ex Parte Application and scheduled hearing upon the contemplated Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement. The Court deemed the Ex Parte Application as the moving papers, ordered any opposition to be filed and served no later than September 27, 2022, and ordered any reply to be filed and served no later than September 30, 2022.

On September 26, 2022, Defendant and Cross-Defendant HLT Limited filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the contemplated Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement.

[Tentative] Ruling

Defendants Hoang Ba Nguyen, Tuuyen Nguyen, and Maihuong Jordan’s Motion For Determination of Good Faith Settlement Between Defendants Hoang Ba Nguyen, Tuuyen Nguyen, and Maihuong Jordan And Plaintiff Michael Allen Denny is GRANTED.

LEGAL STANDARD

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 ensure 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; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (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. (Id. at pp. 498-501.) “Practical considerations obviously require that the [trial court’s] evaluation [of the settlement] be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement.” (Id. at p. 499.)

“The party asserting the lack of good faith . . . [is] permitted to demonstrate, if he can, that the settlement is so far ‘out of the ballpark’ in relation to [the above] factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of [Section 877.6]. Such a demonstration would establish that the proposed settlement was not a ‘settlement made in good faith’ within the terms of section 877.6.” (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 499–500.) “The issue of the good faith of a settlement may be determined by the court on the basis of affidavits served with the notice of hearing, and any counteraffidavits filed in response, or the court may, in its discretion, receive other evidence at the hearing.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (b); see also City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.)

Because a good faith determination bars indemnity claims by non-settling parties, “a key factor a trial court should consider is whether the amount paid in settlement bears a reasonable relationship to the settlor’s proportionate share of liability.” (TSI Seismic Tenant Space, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 159, 166.) “[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.” (Ibid.) Substantial evidence showing the nature and extent of the settling defendant’s liability is required. Without such evidence, a “good faith” determination is an abuse of discretion. (Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1348; see Greshko v. County of Los Angeles (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 822, 834 [attorney’s declaration re settling defendant’s liability insufficient where he failed to provide specific supporting facts or expert opinion].)

Where a motion or application for determination of good faith settlement is uncontested, a “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 to support a good faith determination. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.) Conversely, where a motion for determination of good faith settlement is contested, the moving party must provide the court with declarations or other evidence demonstrating the facts necessary to evaluate the settlement in terms of the factors contemplated by Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488 (Tech Bilt, Inc.). (Ibid.) Further, the burden of showing that a settlement was not made in good faith is placed upon the party opposing the application for determination of good faith settlement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d) [“[t]he party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue”].)

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s operative First Amended Complaint brings causes of action sounding in tort against various alleged joint-tortfeasors. Following the dismissal of former-Defendant Dien Hoang, those alleged tortfeasors include the following Defendants—Hoang Ba Nguyen (owner of the Subject Vehicle), Tuuyen Nguyen (driver of the Subject Vehicle), Maihuong Jordan (owner of the Trailer), and HLT Limited (manufacturer of the Trailer).

Presently, Defendants Hoang Ba Nguyen, Tuuyen Nguyen, and Maihuong Jordan (“Settling Defendants”) bring the present Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement, requesting an Order from the Court deeming the settlement entered between the Settling Defendants and Plaintiff to have been entered in good faith, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6.) The sole Defendant who is not included within the aforementioned settlement is Defendant HLT Limited. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 877, a determination by the Court that the settlement was made in good faith would effectively bar Defendant HLT Limited from asserting any claims “for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity” against the Settling Defendants based upon theories of comparative negligence or comparative fault. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877, subd. (c).) Despite this fact, Defendant HLT Limited has submitted a “Notice of Non-Opposition to the Motion for Good Faith Settlement”, stating “Co-Defendant HLT Limited will not be opposing the Motion For Good Faith Settlement.” (Notice of Non-Opposition, at p. 1:21-23.)

As the Settling Defendants’ Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is unopposed by any alleged joint-tortfeasor, a “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 to support a good faith determination. (City of Grand Terrace, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d at p. 1261.)

Settling Defendants’ Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement sufficiently provides the requisite information contemplated by City of Grand Terrace. (Ibid.) Settling Defendants’ Motion is supported by the Declaration of Joseph O. Fitzgerald, Esq., which adequately sets forth a brief background of Plaintiff’s action. (Fitzgerald Decl., ¶ 2 [“This personal injury case stems from a products liability/negligent maintenance incident that occurred on June 30, 2017, at approximately 5:20am on the southbound 101 freeway near Woodman Avenue. Plaintiff’s motorcycle was struck by a wheel that dislodged from a trailer (owned by Maihuong Jordan) being towed by a 2011 Honda Pilot operated by Tuuyen Nguyen and owned by Hoang Ba Nguyen. HLT Limited made the subject trailer.”].)

Additionally, Settling Defendants’ Motion sets forth the terms of the subject settlement and the grounds for a finding of good faith. Settling Defendants’ Motion specifies that Plaintiff and Settling Defendants reached a settlement in the sum of $350,000.00, which represents the whole of the policy limits of the Settling Defendants ($100,000.00 full single policy limit of Settling Defendants Hoang Ba Nguyen and Tuuyen Nguyen, and $250,000.00 full singly policy limit of Settling Defendant Maihuong Jordan). (Fitzgerald Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff will receive the full sum of the settlement amount, and in exchange, agrees to release all claims relating to the subject motor vehicle collision against Settling Defendants. (Ibid.) Settling Defendants provide that, during the parties’ extensive settlement discussions, the parties did not engage in any sort of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct designed to injure Defendant HLT Limited. (Id. ¶ 5.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes Settling Defendants’ Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement may be properly granted, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6.)

CONCLUSION