SAHARAI ALCARAZ VS SOVEREIGN VENTURES INC ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC632079    Hearing Date: December 11, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

On August 30, 2016, plaintiff Saharai Alcaraz filed this action against defendant Sovereign Ventures, Inc. for premises liability relating to a September 29, 2014 slip and fall on wet paint at her apartment complex. Defendant’s property management company had hired a general contractor, AROD, Inc. (“AROD”) to paint the premises. Defendant offered $40,000 to Plaintiff to settle the case and now seeks a determination of good faith settlement. The motion is unopposed.

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).) 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.)

“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, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d at p. 1261.) However, “[i]f contested, declarations by the nonsettlor should be filed which in many cases could require the moving party to file responsive counter declarations to negate the lack of good faith asserted by the nonsettling contesting party.” (Ibid.)

Defendant submits a declaration with a brief background of the case explaining Defendant’s purported liability and AROD’s involvement. Plaintiff incurred $101,726.33 in medical expenses on a lien basis, and a large part of that expense was exploratory surgery. The $40,000 settlement is a rough approximation of its potential liability and within the “ballpark” because the amount of medical expenses on a lien basis is not necessary the reasonable value of the medical services, and AROD as the contractor likely shares some if not all of the potential liability.

Defendant’s unopposed motion is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.