Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV27521, Date: 2022-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV27521    Hearing Date: August 3, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

LEEZA TIERNEY, et al.,

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

ANUSH SMBATYAN, et al.,

 

                   Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: 20STCV27521

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

August 3, 2022

 

On July 21, 2020, plaintiffs Leeza Tierney (“Tierney”) and Stuart Crichton (“Crichton”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants Anush Smbatyan (“Anush”) and Sevak Smbatyan (collectively, “Settling Defendants”) arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Plaintiffs allege that on April 1, 2019, Tierney was operating her vehicle when Anush drove, without warning and at an excessive speed, out of a private driveway and struck Tierney’s vehicle.  Crichton asserts claims for loss of consortium. 

On September 15, 2020, Plaintiffs amended the Complaint to add John Yavrouian and Vicky Yavrouian (the “Yavrouian Defendants”).  On October 5, 2020, Plaintiffs dismissed Settling Defendants with prejudice from the action.  On November 4, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) naming only the Yavrouian Defendants.  Plaintiffs assert claims for premises liability, negligence, and loss of consortium, alleging that the Yavourian Defendants negligently managed their apartment complex and caused a large trash bin to be placed by their driveway which blocked Plaintiff and Anush’s line of sight, causing Anush’s vehicle to collide with Plaintiff’s.

On September 13, 2021, the Yavrouian Defendants filed a cross-complaint against Settling Defendants and the City of Glendale for indemnity and contribution. 

On April 25, 2022, Settling Defendants filed this 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 explain that they reached a settlement with Plaintiff in September 2020 where Tierney accepted $22,500 and Crichon accepted $2,500 in exchange for a full and final release of any and all claims against Settling Defendants, known or unknown, as alleged in this action.  The total settlement amount is for the single policy limits of $25,0000. 

Settling Defendants do not provide sufficient evidence for this Court to determine that this settlement is in good faith pursuant to CCP 887.6.  There is no evidence or discussion of Plaintiffs’ expected recovery and the Court cannot assess whether $25,000 is “grossly disproportionate” to Settling Defendants’ share of liability.  (Abbott Ford, Inc. v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 858, 874-875 [“In order to encourage settlement, it is quite proper for a settling defendant to pay less than his proportionate share of the anticipated damages.  What is required is simply that the settlement not be grossly disproportionate to the settlor’s fair share.”])  Additionally, even though Settling Defendants’ policy limits are being offered, there is no evidence that Settling Defendants have no other assets. 

Accordingly, the Application is DENIED without prejudice.

 

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.  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.