Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV10393, Date: 2025-01-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV10393    Hearing Date: January 29, 2025    Dept: 45

JEAN-CLAUDE KALI v. MASON A. CANTER, ET AL.

 

MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

 

Date of Hearing:          01/29/25                                 Trial Date:       Not set

Department:               45                                            Case No.:         24STCV10393 

 

Moving Party:             Defendants KH 1217 Virgil LLC, Alexander Beard, and Cristina Dela

Costa

Responding Party:       None

 

BACKGROUND

 

On April 25, 2024, plaintiff Jean-Claude Kali filed a complaint against defendants Mason A. Canter, Eva Dishanni, Jeff Bitran, Anthony P. Hewett, Alexander Beard, Cristina Dela Costa, Daniel Mense, KH Equities LLC, KH 1217 Virgil LLC, the Mason Canter Group, Maxam Investments Inc., Keller Williams Realty Los Feliz LLC, the Anthony Co., the Relocation Method LLC, and Does 1 to 122. Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action against all defendants: (1) General Negligence; (2) Breach of Contract; (3) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (4) Tenant Harassment; (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotion Distress; (6) Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. and 17500 Retaliation Civ. Code section 1942.5; (7) Negligent Hiring, Supervision or Retention of Employee; (8) Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code §§ 51 and 52); and (9) Bane Act (Civil Code section 52.1). Plaintiff’s complaint prays for damages in excess of $25,000 but does not specify an exact amount.

 

On November 7, 2024, defendants KH 1217 Virgil LLC, Alexander Beard, and Cristina Dela Costa (collectively, Settling Defendants) filed an Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement and Notice of Settlement, but it was rejected. The Notice of Rejection of Electronic Filing states, “Per the Judge, counsel is to file a noticed motion.”

 

On December 17, 2024, Settling Defendants brought this motion and related documents. Settling Defendants do not expect an opposition to be filed.

 

An opposition has not been filed.

 

[Tentative] Ruling

 

The Motion for Good Faith Settlement filed by DEFENDANTS KH 1217 VIRGIL LLC, ALEXANDER BEARD, AND CRISTINA DELA COSTA on 12/17/2024 is Granted.

 

LEGAL STANDARD

 

“Any party to an action in which 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 or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors, upon giving notice in the manner provided by subdivision (b) of Section 1005.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(1).)

 

“In the alternative, a settling party may give notice of settlement to all parties and to the court, together with an application for determination of good faith settlement and a proposed order. The application shall indicate the settling parties, and the basis, terms, and amount of the settlement. The notice, application, and proposed order shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by personal service. Proof of service shall be filed with the court. Within 25 days of the mailing of the notice, application, and proposed order, or within 20 days of personal service, a nonsettling party may file a notice of motion to contest the good faith settlement. If none of the nonsettling parties files a motion within 25 days of mailing of the notice, application, and proposed order, or within 20 days of personal service, the court may approve the settlement. However, this paragraph shall not apply to settlements in which a confidentiality agreement has been entered into regarding the case or the terms of the settlement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(2).)

 

“The issue of the good faith of a settlement may be determined by the court on the basis of the 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).) “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).) “The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).)

 

When determining whether a settlement was made in good faith, the following factors are considered: (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. (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.)

 

“The ultimate determinant of good faith is whether the settlement is grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person at the time of settlement would estimate the settlor’s liability to be.” (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1262, citation omitted.) “[A] good faith settlement does not call for perfect or even nearly perfect apportionment of liability.” (Abbott Ford, Inc. v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 858, 875, internal quotations omitted.) “[O]nly when the good faith nature of a settlement is disputed, it is incumbent upon the trial court to consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors.” (City of Grand Terrace, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d at p. 1261.) “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.” (Ibid.)

 

ANALYSIS

 

Settling Defendants move for a determination that the settlement agreement was entered into in good faith and an order affirming that “any and all future cross-complaints for indemnity and/or contribution against [Settling Defendants] are barred” under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (e). (Motion pp. 1-2, 8; Proposed Order p. 2.)

 

Plaintiff’s and Settling Defendants’ settlement agrees to dismiss the instant action against Settling Defendants with prejudice. (Decl. Mantovani 2.) Moreover, the settlement includes the following: “payment of $20,000.00 [check made payable to Plaintiff] within approximately (5) business days from the date Settling Defendants' attorneys at Murchison & Cumming, LLP receive a copy of the fully executed Settlement Agreement, CMS Form, Medicare Addendum, executed stipulation for judgment and possession, and a dismissal with prejudice to be held in trust by counsel for Settling Defendants;” (2) “Plaintiff agrees to release and forever discharge Settling Defendants and related entities and vacate the premises by December 1, 2024;” and (3) “Plaintiff will timely vacate the property and comply with delivering the documents that are required in order to obtain the funds or else a judgment for unpaid rent and possession will be filed by Settling Defendants.” (Decl. Mantovani 2.) Settling Defendants inform the Court that funds have been paid, and Plaintiff has moved out.

 

“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.”¿ (City of Grand Terrace, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.) 

 

Settling Defendants have provided grounds for good faith. Plaintiff asks for an excess of $25,000 in damages but does not specify how much. (Compl. p. 19.) Settling Defendants believe their settlement offer of $20,000 is not grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person at the time of settlement would estimate their liability to be. (Motion p. 10.) If this motion is approved and the Settling Defendants are dismissed, eleven defendants are left in this case, including Mason A. Canter, Eva Dishanni, Jeff Bitran, Anthony P. Hewett, Daniel Mense, KH Equities LLC, the Mason Canter Group, Maxam Investments Inc., Keller Williams Realty Los Feliz LLC, the Anthony Co., and the Relocation Method LLC. A settlement offer of $20,000 is not disproportionate because Plaintiff will likely recover the remaining $5,000 plus from some of the remaining defendants.

 

In addition, Settling Defendants recognize that they should pay less in settlement than they would if they were found liable at trial. (Motion pp. 9-10.) The mediated settlement of the disputed claim is the result of “arms-length negotiations” amongst the parties' counsel. (Decl. Mantovani 4.) There is no evidence of “collusion of any sort among parties.” (Decl. Mantovani 4.)

 

Furthermore, Settling Defendants’ motion sets forth a brief background of the case. (Motion p. 3.) No opposition to the instant motion has been filed. 

 

Therefore, the Court grants the Motion for Good Faith Settlement. 

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Motion for Good Faith Settlement filed by DEFENDANTS KH 1217 VIRGIL LLC, ALEXANDER BEARD, AND CRISTINA DELA COSTA on 12/17/2024 is Granted.

 

Any and all future cross-complaints for indemnity and/or contribution against KH 1217 Virgil LLC, Alexander Beard, and Cristina Dela Costa are barred.

 

Moving party to give notice.