Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 19STCV38477, Date: 2023-05-03 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 19STCV38477    Hearing Date: May 3, 2023    Dept: L

Defendant Jackson Group Peterbilt, Inc.’s unopposed Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.

 

Background   

 

Plaintiff Brian Anthony Lopez (“Brian”) alleges as follows: Brian sustained injuries in a July 30, 2019 car crash.

 

On October 25, 2019, Brian filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against James Robert Hayes (“Hayes”), Daniel Lopez (“Daniel”), Gurney Trucking, Inc. (“GTI”) and Does 1-25 for:

 

1.      Motor Vehicle

2.      General Negligence

 

On July 7, 2020, GTI filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems, LLC (“Bendix”), Paccar, Inc. (“Paccar”), Peterbilt Motors Company (“Peterbilt”), Jackson Group Peterbilt, Inc. (“Jackson Group”) and Moes 1-10 for:

 

1.      Indemnity

2.      Contribution

3.      Comparative Fault

4.      Declaratory Relief

 

On August 31, 2020, Bendix filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against GTI, Hayes and Roes 1-25 for:

 

1.      Implied/Equitable Indemnity

2.      Contribution/Apportionment

3.      Declaratory Relief

 

On September 18, 2020, this case was transferred from Department 32 of the Personal Injury Court to this instant department.

 

On April 8, 2021, Daniel filed four Amendments to Cross-Complaint, wherein Bendix was named in lieu of Roe 1, Paccar was named in lieu of Roe 2, Peterbilt was named in lieu of Roe 3 and Jackson Group was named in lieu of Roe 4.

 

On April 19, 2021, Daniel and Intervenor Maria Morales Garcia (“Garcia”) filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint, asserting causes of action against Hayes, GTI, Bendix, Paccar, Peterbilt, Jackson Group and Roes 1-10 for:

 

1.      Negligence

2.      Products Liability

3.      Loss of Consortium

4.      Indemnification

5.      Apportionment of Fault

6.      Declaratory Relief

 

On April 20, 2021, GTI and Hayes filed a “Notice of Intent to Enter Into Sliding Scale Settlement Agreement with Plaintiffs and Cross-Complainants.”

 

On May 20, 2021, Jackson Group filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Hayes, GTI, Daniel, Paccar, Peterbilt, Bendix and Does 1-10 for:

 

1.      Negligence

2.      Equitable Indemnity

3.      Contribution and Apportionment of Fault

 

On June 11, 2021, Brian filed four Amendments to Complaint, wherein Bendix was named in lieu of Doe 1, Paccar was named in lieu of Doe 2, Peterbilt was named in lieu of Doe 3 and Jackson Group was named in lieu of Doe 4.

 

On July 12, 2021, Peterbilt dismissed its first cause of action, with prejudice. On July 14, 2021, Jackson Group filed a “Notice of Withdrawal” of its first cause of action in its cross-complaint.

On February 3, 2023, GTI and Hayes filed a “Notice of Intent to Enter Into Sliding Scale Settlement Agreement with Plaintiffs and Cross-Complainants.”

 

On March 27, 2023, the court granted GTI’s and Hayes’ motion for determination of good faith settlement. On March 30, the court granted Jackson Group’s motion for determination of good faith settlement.

 

 

 

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-obligators, upon giving notice in the manner provided in subdivision (b) of Section 1005 . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(1).)

 

“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).)

 

“[T]he intent and policies underlying section 877.6 require that a number of factors be taken into account including 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.  Finally, practical considerations obviously require that the evaluation be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement.” (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.) Additionally, “the trial court’s good faith determination must take into account the settling tortfeasor’s potential liability for indemnity to a cotortfeasor, as well as then settling tortfeasor’s potential liability to the plaintiff.” (Far West Financial Corp. v. D&S Co. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 796, 816, fn. 16.) “If section 877.6 is to serve the ends of justice, it must prevent a party from purchasing protection from its indemnification obligation at bargain-basement prices.” (Long Beach Memorial Medical Center v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 865, 876.)

 

The moving party’s initial evidentiary burden depends on whether the good faith of the settlement is being contested. If the nonsettling defendants do not oppose the motion on the good faith issue, a “barebones” motion which sets forth the grounds of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case, is sufficient. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.)

 

When a motion for determination of good faith settlement is contested, however, the moving party must make a more specific showing under the Tech-Bilt factors. (Id. at 1261-62.) Such a showing may be made either in the original moving papers or in counter-declarations filed after the nonsettling defendants have filed an opposition challenging good faith of the settlement. (Id. at 1262.) Where good faith is contested, the showing requires competent evidence in support of “good faith.” (Greshko v. County of Los Angeles (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 822, 834.)

 

“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 non-settlor who asserts that the settlement was not made in good faith.” (City of Grand Terrace, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d at 1262; Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).)

 

Discussion

 

Paccar and Peterbilt (collectively, “Paccar”) move the court for orders (1) determining that the settlement between Paccar, on the one hand, and Brian and Garcia, individually and as Guardian ad Litem of Daniel, on the other hand (together, “Claimants”), is a settlement entered into in good faith, (2) dismissing, with prejudice, Brian’s complaint against Paccar; (3) dismissing, with prejudice, Garcia’s, individually and as Guardian ad Litem for Daniel, complaint; (4) dismissing with prejudice, all pending claims in this or any other related action against Paccar for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault and (5) barring any other actual or potential tortfeasor or co-obligor from any future claims against Paccar for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault, arising out of the accident which is the subject of this action.

 

Merits

 

No non-settling defendant has objected to the settlement. Again, in this situation, it is enough for a settling defendant to make a “barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case…” (City of Grand Terrace, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d at 1261.)

 

Paccar’s motion meets this lower threshold.

 

The motion provides the requisite “brief background of the case.” The motion recites that the settlement was entered into in good faith and addresses the Tech-Bilt factors. The terms of the settlement are as follows: (1) Paccar will pay Claimants $800,000.00 (with $795,000.00 going to Garcia and $5,000.00 going to Daniel), (2) Claimants will release any past, present, or future claims against Paccar and dismiss their claims against Paccar; and (3) each party will be responsible for their own costs and fees. (Linkous Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.)

 

In this case, Paccar is the company that built the Peterbilt 579 tractor-trailer owned by GTI and driven by Hayes.

 

Accordingly, the court determines that the settlement entered into between Paccar and Claimants was made in good faith. Thus, the unopposed motion is granted.