Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV09377, Date: 2022-09-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV09377 Hearing Date: September 21, 2022 Dept: 27
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL
DISTRICT
|
Plaintiff(s), vs. BNSF
RAILWAY COMPANY, et al., Defendant(s). |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER RE: DEFENDANT JAMES EDWARD ORR’S MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH
SETTLEMENT Dept.
27 1:30
p.m. September
21, 2022 |
On March 10, 2021, plaintiffs Jose
Mariaca (“Plaintiff”) and Monique Cruz (“Cruz”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
filed this action against defendants BNSF Railway Company (“BNSF”), Michael
Johnpaul Beeson (“Beeson”), and James Edward Orr (“Orr”) arising from a May 15,
2019, motor vehicle collision. Plaintiffs
alleges that Beeson, who was employed by BNSF at the time, turned left in front
of oncoming traffic and caused Orr to rear-end Plaintiff’s vehicle. Cruz asserts a cause of action for loss of
consortium.
On June 24, 2021, Orr filed a cross-complaint
against BNSF and Beeson for indemnity, apportionment, and declaratory
relief. On November 15, 2021, BNSF filed
a cross-complaint against Orr for equitable and implied indemnity,
apportionment, contribution, and declaratory relief.
On July 20, 2022, Orr filed this motion
for determination of good faith settlement after he and Plaintiff reached a
settlement of $20,000. BNSF opposes the
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”].) “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.” (Abbott Ford,
Inc. v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 858, 874-875.)
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.)
Orr provides a description of the
accident, stating that at the time of the collision, Orr had been traveling in
the number two lane on Rosecrans in Santa Fe Spring, California. Plaintiff was traveling in the number one
lane ahead of Orr. Beeson, while working
for BNSF, was driving a van owned by BNSF and pulled out of a cross-street and
onto oncoming traffic. Orr claims that the
collision between Plaintiff and BNSF’s vehicle caused Plaintiff’s vehicle to
pivot and pushed Plaintiff into Orr’s lane, at which point Orr and Plaintiff’s
vehicles made contact. As a result of
this accident, Plaintiff claims to have suffered injury to his neck and low
back with past medical expenses of approximately $178,298.
On June 8, 2022, Orr served Plaintiffs
with an offer to compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998 for
$20,000, which is Orr’s policy limit. The
offer was verbally accepted by Plaintiff’s counsel. Orr contends that the settlement is in good
faith because it reflects the reasonable evaluation of liability and meets the
standards set forth under Tech-Built.
BNSF opposes Orr’s motion and argues
that the settlement figure is grossly disproportionate because Plaintiffs’
demand letter estimated a recovery of $2,000,000, which includes past and
future medical expenses, lost wages, and a possible jury verdict. BNSF states that even if Plaintiffs’ damages
are limited to Plaintiff’s past medical expenses (more than $190,000), future
medical expenses ($150,000) and lost wages ($83,436.65), Orr’s settlement of
$20,000 is barely above 3% of that sum, even though Plaintiffs’ demand letter
claims that Orr is 10% at fault. BNSF also
asserts that Plaintiff’s vehicle collided with the van’s side rear bumper and states
that Plaintiff testified in his deposition that he felt the impact from behind
(from Orr’s vehicle) first and then was pushed into BNSF’s van. BNSF also argues that Orr has not submitted
evidence of his financial condition, as Orr only declares that he does not have
any available excess or umbrella insurance to satisfy any judgment.
On reply, Orr submits a declaration
stating that he is a full-time electrician but the nature of his work is on a
project-to-project basis. (Reply, Orr
Decl., ¶ 9.) Accordingly, there are
times when he is not earning any income.
(Ibid.) Orr declares he
does not own any real property, his checking account balance ranges from $0 to
$2,500, and he does not have a savings account.
(Id., ¶¶ 10-12.) His
investments include $200 in Bitcoin and $50 in Tesla stock. (Id., ¶ 15.) He currently owns a 2016 Jeep Latitude with
$300 in monthly payments and a balance of $4,500 remaining towards full payment
for the vehicle. (Ibid.) He also has $2,000-$3,000 in credit card debt. (Orr Decl., ¶ 14.)
In light of this supplemental evidence,
the Court finds that Orr has shown that the settlement with Plaintiffs is in
good faith. Orr’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.