Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 19STCV37496, Date: 2022-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV37496    Hearing Date: August 17, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On October 18, 2019, plaintiff Yosselin Dionne (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. (“Panda”) and SR Partners, LLC (“SR Partners”) arising from a slip and fall that occurred on March 2, 2019. 

On June 15, 2022, Panda filed this motion for determination of good faith settlement after Plaintiff agreed to settle her claims against Panda in exchange for $17,500.  The remaining defendants are SR Partners, Avison Young, LTD, and WFM Facilities Management, Inc.  No opposition was filed to this motion. 

The Court must approve any settlement entered into by less than all joint tortfeasors or co-obligors.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6.)  This requirement furthers two sometimes-competing policies: (1) the equitable sharing of costs among the parties at fault, and (2) the encouragement of settlements.  (Erreca’s v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1487.)  If the settlement is made in good faith, the Court “shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor 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).)  “A determination as to the good faith of a settlement, within the meaning of section 877.6, necessarily requires the trial court to examine and weigh a number of relevant factors, one of the most important of which is the settling party’s proportionate liability.  In making such examination, the court must look at the state of the evidence as it exists at the time the motion for a good faith determination is heard.  [Citation.]  If . . . there is no substantial evidence to support a critical assumption as to the nature and extent of a settling defendant’s liability, then a determination of good faith based upon such assumption is an abuse of discretion.”  (Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 864, 871; L.C. Rudd & Son, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 742, 750 [“It is the burden of the settling parties to explain to the court and to all other parties the evidentiary basis for any allocations and valuations made sufficient to demonstrate that a reasonable allocation was made”].)  “When no one objects, the barebones motion which sets forth the ground for good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is sufficient” for the Court to grant a motion for determination of good faith settlement.  (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1257, 1261.) 

Panda submitted the required brief and declaration setting forth the grounds for good faith and a background of the case.  Panda’s motion is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.