ANDREW PEITRUSZKA VS YESHAYA BAYAR

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCP02212    Hearing Date: January 14, 2021    Dept: 26

Peitruszka v. Bayar, et al.

PETITION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

(CCP § 877.6)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Andrew Peitruszka’s Petition and Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement are DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Petitioner Andrew Peitruszka (“Petitioner’) filed the instant Petition for Determination of Good Faith Settlement on July 10, 2020 against Respondent Yeshaya Bayar (“Respondent”). On August 5, 2020, Petition also filed a Motion for Determination that Settlement is in Good Faith. The parties’ dispute arises out of a motor vehicle versus pedestrian accident that occurred on November 22, 2017 at Mesivta of Greater Los Angeles. (Pet., ¶2.)

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 states, in pertinent part:

(a) (1) Any party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors, upon giving notice in the manner provided in subdivision (b) of Section 1005. Upon a showing of good cause, the court may shorten the time for giving the required notice to permit the determination of the issue to be made before the commencement of the trial of the action, or before the verdict or judgment if settlement is made after the trial has commenced.

(2) In the alternative, 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. The notice, application, and proposed order shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by personal service. Proof of service shall be filed with the court.

. . .

(Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a).)

Discussion

The Petition and Motion are both defective in numerous respects. First, there is no allowance in the statute for the filing of a “Petition for Good Faith Settlement.” The statute contemplates either the filing of a motion under subdivision (a)(1) or application under subdivision (a)(2). Second, the motion or application must be made in the context of a pending action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(1) [“Any party to an action . . . .”].) There was no pending action prior to the filing of the instant Petition for Determination of Good Faith Settlement.

Third, the motion or application must be made in an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt. This action involves a motor vehicle accident but there is no allegation of a second tortfeasor, other than a suggestion that Respondent may file a future action against Mesivta of Greater Los Angeles. (Pet., ¶2.) Again, without a pending action against joint tortfeasors, Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 is inapplicable.

Finally, the Court notes that the parties’ settlement is in the amount of $100,000.00, which is outside the jurisdictional scope of the limited jurisdiction court. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 85, 86.)

Conclusion

Petitioner Andrew Peitruszka’s Petition and Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement are DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.