Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV41794, Date: 2022-12-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV41794    Hearing Date: December 28, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 2, 2020, plaintiff Deeanna Linsmaier (“Plaintiff”) filed an action (the “Bushara Action”) against defendant Wail Bushara (“Bushara”) arising from a car accident that occurred on November 4, 2018. Plaintiff was a passenger in Bushara’s car at the time of the accident.  On

On November 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second action against Matthew Muldoon (“Muldoon”) and Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company (“Esurance”, erroneously sued as “Esurance Insurance Service”) arising from the same accident (the “Muldoon Action”).  Plaintiff also named Bushara in the Muldoon Action.  On September 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) which substituted Muldoon’s estate as a defendant.     

On January 20, 2021, Bushara filed a cross-complaint against Muldoon in the Bushara Action for indemnity, apportionment, and declaratory relief.  On August 23, 2022, the Court granted Bushara’s motion to substitute Muldoon’s estate as a defendant pursuant to Probate Code section 550 and limit his recovery to Muldoon’s insurance coverage.  Bushara filed the first amended cross-complaint (“FACC”) on September 29, 2022. 

On October 19, 2022, Muldoon’s estate and Esurance filed an application for determination of good faith settlement in the Muldoon Action after reaching a settlement with Plaintiff for the amount of $100,000.

On November 14, 2022, Bushara filed this motion to contest the application for determination of good faith settlement.   

On November 30, 2022, at Bushara’s request, the clerk dismissed Esurance from the FACC. 

On December 6, 2022, the Court consolidated the two actions.

On December 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Bushara’s motion.  Although no opposition brief from Muldoon’s estate is on file with the Court, Bushara filed two reply briefs on December 19, 2022; one responding to Plaintiff’s opposition and one responding to an opposition brief purportedly served by Muldoon’s estate. 

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

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).)  To demonstrate a lack of good faith, the non-settling party must show that the settlement is so far “out of the ballpark” as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of Section 877.6.  (Nutrition Now, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 209, 213.)  The Court will typically consider: (1) the plaintiff’s (roughly) approximated total recovery; (2) the settlor’s share of liability; (3) the size of the settlement at issue; (4) the distribution of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (5) the usual discount value when plaintiffs settle before trial; the settlor’s financial condition and insurance policy limits; and (6) whether there is evidence of “collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.”  (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.)  These factors will be evaluated accordingly to what information is available at the time of settlement.  (Ibid.)

III.        DISCUSSION

Bushara argues that the $100,000 settlement amount is not proportionate to Muldoon’s fault because Plaintiff is claiming $1.4 million in damages.  Bushara contends that Muldoon was at least 50% at fault for the accident and states that Muldoon signed a statement at the scene of the accident, admitting that he was the cause of the accident.  (Motion, Ex. C.) 

Curiously absent from Bushara’s motion or reply brief is any discussion of the fact that Bushara and Plaintiff agreed, pursuant to Probate Code sections 550 and 554, to limit their recovery on their claims and cross-claims against Muldoon’s estate to Muldoon’s applicable insurance coverage.  Additionally, Bushara does not appear to believe that he possesses any valid claims against Esurance, because he dismissed Esurance from the FACC on November 30, 2022, after the application for determination of good faith settlement was filed.  In light of the foregoing, Bushara has not met his burden to show that the settlement amount is “out of the ballpark.”   

IV.         CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Bushara’s Motion is DENIED.         

The Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.  

Muldoon’s Estate and Esurance to give notice of this ruling and to submit a revised proposed order granting the application for determination of good faith settlement.  The proposed order currently on file with the Court states that no motion to contest the settlement was filed. 

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.