Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV08718, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV08718    Hearing Date: October 4, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On March 2, 2020, plaintiff De Ephraim Thomas filed this action against defendants American Guard Services, Inc. (“AGS”), American Professional Security, LPC West, Inc. (“LPC”) (erroneously sued as “Lincoln Property Co.”), HRA 9th & Flower, LP (“HRA”), MDC Realty Advisors, LP (“MDC”) (erroneously sued as “Hannay Realty Advisors”); Ralphs Grocery Company dba Ralphs (“Ralphs’), and Gilbert Turner (“Turner”). Plaintiff alleges that on March 1, 2018, he was attacked by Turner who was employed as a security guard at a Ralphs’ Grocery Store. On January 14, 2021, Plaintiff named 1st American Professional as Doe 1. On April 26, 2021, Plaintiff named Modern Protection as Doe 2. On March 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint.  On April 18, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to add Roxana Aviles (“Aviles”) as a Doe 3. 

On July 1, 2022, HRA, MDC, and LPC (collectively, “Settling Defendants”) filed an application for determination of good faith settlement.  The application is unopposed. 

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.) 

Settling Defendants have agreed to pay Plaintiff $50,000 in exchange for a general release of claims.  The settlement is in addition to payment of $50,000 by co-defendants Ralphs and Aviles, as well as $10,000 by AGS, and was the product of a mediation hearing.  Modern Protection did not participate in the mediation and has a pending motion for summary judgment scheduled to be heard on December 6, 2022. 

Settling Defendants deny that MDC had any responsibility for Plaintiff’s injuries.  Settling Defendants explain that MDC is the owner and property manager of the property leased to Ralphs.  MDC retained 1st American to provide day porter and security services.  In turn, 1st American subcontracted with Modern Protection to provide security services.  Turner was employed by Modern Protection. While Ralphs retained AGS to provide security for the interior of its premises, 1st American, through Modern Protection, was to patrol the common areas of the property.  MDC had no employees present at the property on the date of the incident and states that its contribution of $50,000 towards settlement represents 20% of Plaintiff’s total estimated damages of $250,000. 

While MDC’s proportionate liability is discussed at length, there is no briefing or evidence regarding HRA or LPC’s potential or alleged liability.  Accordingly, the Court cannot find that the settlement amount offered by all three defendants is within the ballpark and that the settlement was made in good faith.  Settling Defendants’ Application is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving party to give notice.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL
DISTRICT

On March 2, 2020, plaintiff De Ephraim
Thomas filed this action against defendants American Guard Services, Inc.
(“AGS”), American Professional Security, LPC West, Inc. (“LPC”) (erroneously
sued as “Lincoln Property Co.”), HRA 9th & Flower, LP (“HRA”), MDC Realty
Advisors, LP (“MDC”) (erroneously sued as “Hannay Realty Advisors”); Ralphs
Grocery Company dba Ralphs (“Ralphs’), and Gilbert Turner (“Turner”). Plaintiff
alleges that on March 1, 2018, he was attacked by Turner who was employed as a
security guard at a Ralphs’ Grocery Store. On January 14, 2021, Plaintiff named
1st American Professional as Doe 1. On April 26, 2021, Plaintiff named Modern
Protection as Doe 2. On March 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative first
amended complaint.  On April 18, 2022,
Plaintiff amended the complaint to add Roxana Aviles (“Aviles”) as a Doe
3. 

On June 30, 2022, Ralphs and Aviles
(collectively, “Settling Defendants”) filed a motion for determination of good
faith settlement.  The motion is
unopposed. 

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.) 

Settling Defendants have agreed to pay
Plaintiff $50,000 in exchange for a general release of claims.  The settlement is in addition to payment of
$50,000 by co-defendant HRA and $10,000 by AGS, and was the product of a
mediation hearing.  Modern Protection did
not participate in the mediation and has a pending motion for summary judgment
scheduled to be heard on December 6, 2022. 

Settling Defendants deny any liability
for Turner’s criminal assault and battery on Plaintiff on the grounds that
there was no agency relationship or any relationship at all with Turner.  (Motion, 3:4-6.)  Ralphs claims it did not employ Turner and
the assault occurred off of Ralphs’s premises on a public sidewalk.  (Motion, 3:7.)  Moreover, Settling Defendants state that
there is no evidence that Aviles aided or assisted Turner in the assault and
battery of Plaintiff and her involvement in the incident ended when Plaintiff
left Ralphs’s premises.  Settling
Defendants further state that Plaintiffs’ claims for economic damages are
approximately $25,000. 

In light of the foregoing, the Court
finds that the settlement amount offered by Settling Defendants is within the
ballpark and that the settlement was made in good faith.  Settling Defendants’ unopposed 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.