Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00114, Date: 2025-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00114    Hearing Date: February 7, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

On January 9, 2025, plaintiff Violeta Martin (“Plaintiff”) filed this application for determination of good faith settlement. Plaintiff has agreed to settle her claims against the estate of Donald R. Welch and Rachel Welch in exchange for $22,000. The application was served via certified mail and unopposed.

“[A] settling party may give notice of settlement to all parties and to the court, together with an application for determination of good faith settlement and a proposed order. The application shall indicate the settling parties, and the basis, terms, and amount of the settlement. . . . Within 25 days of the mailing of the notice, application, and proposed order, or within 20 days of personal service, a nonsettling party may file a notice of motion to contest the good faith of the settlement. If none of the nonsettling parties files a motion within 25 days of mailing of the notice, application, and proposed order, or within 20 days of personal service, the court may approve the settlement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(2).) 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.) 

This action arises due to the alleged failure of Welch Law Firm, of which Donald R. Welch (“Welch”) was the principal, to file a complaint on Plaintiff’s behalf relating to a motor vehicle accident before the statute of limitations period expired. Plaintiff’s counsel explains that the settlement amount of $22,000 with Welch’s estate and his wife/successor-in-interest, Rachel Welch, is “within the ballpark” because her total estimated recovery exceeds $75,000 and Welch is potentially liable for 50-90% of her claim. This declaration is sufficient to set forth the grounds for good faith.

In light of the foregoing, the unopposed application for the determination of good faith settlement is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 7th day of February 2025

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.