Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 19STCV34756, Date: 2022-11-14 Tentative Ruling
Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.
In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:
The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.
Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.
If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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 motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.
**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.
Case Number: 19STCV34756 Hearing Date: November 14, 2022 Dept: 31
ORDER
FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT IS GRANTED
Background
On September 30, 2019, Plaintiffs Rachel Ingram and Isaac Ingram filed the instant action against HKA Elevator Consulting, Inc.; ABM Industries, Inc.; Otis Elevator Company; United Technologies Corporation; City of Los Angeles; City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety Elevator Division; County of Los Angeles; County of Los Angeles Elevator and Safety Unit; State of California; State of California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Elevator Unit; and Does 1 through 110.
On November 21, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The FAC asserts causes of action for:
1) Negligence;
2) Negligence
– Common Carrier;
3) Premises
Liability;
4) Negligent
Products Liability – Failure to Warn;
5) Strict
Products Liability – Manufacturing Defect;
6) Strict
Products Liability – Design Defect;
7) Government
Code § 815 et seq.;
8) Government
Code § 815 et seq. – Premises Liability; and
9) Loss of Consortium.
On September 30, 2022, Defendant Federal Construction Group, Inc. (hereinafter “Federal Construction”) filed this Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement.
No opposition or reply has
been filed.
Legal Standard
Under the California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) Section
877.6, the court applies the factors identified by the California Supreme Court
in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d
488 to determine whether a settlement is in good faith and if the settlement
amount is “in the ballpark” of the settling party’s share of liability for
injuries:
1. a rough approximation of the plaintiff's total recovery;
2. an approximation of the settling party's share of the liability;
3. recognition that a settling party should pay less in
settlement than if found liable after a trial;
4. the allocation of the settlement proceeds among plaintiffs;
5. the settling party's financial condition and insurance
policy limits;
6. evidence that the plaintiff and the settling party acted
with an intent to make the non-settling parties pay more than their fair share
(considered fraud and collusion under Tech-Bilt).
CCP Section 877.6 permits the court to evaluate a
settlement made between a plaintiff and a defendant when the defendant is a
joint tortfeasor with other non-settling defendants. A determination that the
settlement is a good faith settlement under CCP Section 877.6 will bar any
claims for equitable contribution or comparative indemnity. The burden is on
the parties opposing the settlement to show it was not made in good faith. (Id.
subd. (d).)
Accordingly, the party asserting the lack of “good faith” may meet this burden
by demonstrating that the settlement is so far “out of the ballpark” as to be
inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute. (See Tech-Bilt,
Inc. 38 Cal. 3d 488 at 499-500.) Such a demonstration would establish that
the proposed settlement was not a “settlement made in good faith” within the
terms of Section 877.6. (Id.)
However, if the motion seeking a determination of good faith settlement is not opposed, then the moving parties’ burden to show that the settlement was made in good faith is slight. (See City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261 [holding that a barebones motion including a declaration setting forth a brief background is sufficient].)
Discussion
On November 14, 2018, Plaintiff Rachel Ingram boarded Elevator 11 (“subject elevator”) at the Royal Federal Building, when the elevator came to an abrupt stop and injured Plaintiff. (UMF 1.) Plaintiff asserts that she was thrown to the floor, hit her head on the way down, lost consciousness, and suffered injuries and damages. Plaintiff’s Husband Isaac Ingram is suing for loss of consortium.
Defendant Federal Construction now seeks a determination that the settlement between Federal Construction and Plaintiffs is in good faith and meets the standards set out in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1995) 38 Cal.3d 488.)
In mediation, Federal Construction, through its insurance carrier, agreed to pay the Plaintiffs a total sum of $85,000.00. The total settlement amount will be allocated with 2.5% ($2,125.00) going to Isaac Ingram for his claims and 97.5% ($82,875.00) allocated to Rachel Ingram for her claims. (Pistol Supp. Decl. ¶ 3.)
Approximation of Total Recovery and Liability
To date, Plaintiff Rachel Ingram claims $80,000.00 in medical damages and $79,000.00 in lost earnings. Plaintiff has now obtained employment. Federal Construction asserts that Plaintiff Rachel Ingram’s medical issues do not appear to be ongoing. Plaintiff Isaac Ingram’s damages are estimated to be about $25,000.00 to $50,000.00.
Federal Construction is one of four other defendants, along with HKA Elevator Consulting, Otis Elevator, and ABM Industries Group. Federal Construction presents evidence that at the time of the incident, Otis and HKA were responsible for the service and inspection of the elevators and ABM was responsible for the operation of the elevators. (Pistol Decl. ¶¶ 7, 8, Ex. C.) Federal Construction had sent its closeout letter to the GSA on August 31, 2016, after the modernization project was completed. (Pistol Decl. Ex. B.) Per Plaintiff’s Complaint, the incident occurred on November 14, 2018.
The Court agrees that Federal Contraction’s proposes settlement is “in the ballpark” of Federal Constructions’ alleged liability. (See Tech-Bilt, Inc., supra, 38 Cal.3d¿at pp. 499-500.)
Moreover, Federal Construction’s motion remains unopposed and Federal Construction asserts the settlement was not derived from collusion, fraud, or tortuous conduct aimed to injure the interests of any non-settling defendants.
Based on the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED.
Conclusion
Federal Construction Group, Inc.’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.
Moving party to give notice.