Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV11053, Date: 2023-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV11053    Hearing Date: August 30, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

On March 17, 2020, plaintiff Jane Doe (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants City of Hope Medical Center (“City of Hope”), Sam Vu (“Vu”), and FlexCare Medical Staffing (“FlexCare”).  Plaintiff asserts four causes of action for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, negligence, sexual battery, and elder abuse.  Judgment was entered in favor of City of Hope on February 10, 2023, leaving Vu and FlexCare as the remaining defendants.  On February 14, 2023, the Court granted FlexCare’s motion for summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages and denied the motion as to Plaintiff’s claim for professional negligence.  On August 2, 2023, FlexCare filed this unopposed motion for determination of good faith settlement because Plaintiff has agreed to settle her claims for $70,000 in exchange for a dismissal of the entire case with prejudice.  

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”].)  The non-settling tortfeasors or obligors bear the burden of demonstrating the absence of good faith in the settlement.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).)  “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.) 

FlexCare argues that a determination of good faith is supported because Plaintiff’s damages are primarily noneconomic and therefore capped by Civil Code section 3333.2.  FlexCare states that its proportional vicarious liability in the professional negligence context is limited because the crux of this case is alleged sexual assault by Vu.  FlexCare also states that there is no evidence of any collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed at making non-settling parties pay more than their fair share because the settlement includes a dismissal of the entire case (therefore, a dismissal of FlexCare and Vu, and Does 1 through 50) with prejudice.

Based on the record presented and the lack of any objection, the Court GRANTS the motions, finds this settlement between FlexCare and Plaintiff was made in good faith, and orders that any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor is barred from asserting further claims against FlexCare for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 30th day of August 2023

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@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.