ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ, SR., INDIVIDUALLY, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO BRIANA SANCHEZ, DECEDENT, ET AL. VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******5543 Hearing Date: August 30, 2023 Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On May 10, 2022, Plaintiffs Alejandro Sanchez, Sr., Emmitt Sanchez, and Araceli Hernandez filed this action against Defendants Ford Motor Company, Tutor Perini Corporation, Zachry Construction Corporation, Parsons Corporation, Paccar Inc., Deudiel Juarez Ramirez (“Juarez”) and H&M Trucking and Equipment Rental of Dinuba (“H&M”) for wrongful death based on strict products liability, survival based on strict products liability, bystander liability based on strict products liability, wrongful death based on negligence, survival based on negligence, bystander liability based on negligence and negligence.

On December 12, 2022, Juarez and H&M filed an answer.

On July 6, 2023, the Court denied the motion for good faith settlement determination of Juarez and H&M.

On July 7, 2023, Juarez and H&M (“Moving Defendants”) filed a notice of settlement and a motion for good faith settlement determination to be heard on August 30, 2023. No opposition has been filed.

On August 18, 2023, Zachry Construction Corporation filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Roes 1-100 for implied indemnity, contribution, declaratory relief, and express contractual indemnity.

On August 21, 2023, the Court dismissed Defendants Tutor Perini Corporation, Zachry Construction Corporation, and Parsons Corporation without prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request.

Trial is scheduled for November 7, 2023.

PARTIES’ REQUEST

Moving Defendants request that the Court find their settlement with Plaintiffs is in good faith.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (a)(2) states that “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. 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. . . .”

“The issue of the good faith of a settlement may be determined by the court on the basis of affidavits served with the notice of hearing, and any counteraffidavits filed in response, or the court may, in its discretion, receive other evidence at the hearing.” (Code Civ. Proc., 877.6, subd. (b).)

“The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.” (Code Civ. Proc., 877.6, subd. (d).)

In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499 (Tech-Bilt), the California Supreme Court identified the following nonexclusive factors courts must consider in determining if a settlement is in good faith under section 877.6: “a rough approximation of plaintiffs' total recovery and the settlor's proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial. Other relevant considerations include the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants, as well as the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.”

The evaluation of a settlement is “made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement.” (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 499.)

DISCUSSION

This lawsuit arises out of a multi-vehicle collision. Juarez was driving a vehicle for H&M at the time of the accident. Juarez’s vehicle allegedly rear-ended a Toyota pickup truck, which was pushed into Plaintiffs’ 2004 Lincoln Navigator. Plaintiffs’ Lincoln Navigator was pushed into another car in front of it (which was pushed into another vehicle in front of it and so on). The Lincoln Navigator caught fire. One of the passengers in Plaintiffs’ Lincoln Navigator, Briana Sanchez, died from her injuries; the other passengers were injured. This action is being brought by 3 of the 6 passengers in Plaintiffs’ Lincoln Navigator. The other 3 passengers filed a separate suit.

A. Plaintiff’s total recovery and settlor’s proportionate liability

Alejandro Sanchez Sr. sustained lacerations to the back of his head and the left side of his face. Araceli Hernandez sustained pain to her left side. Jesus Sanchez sustained broken ribs and a left ankle injury. Emmitt Sanchez sustained a broken mandible and broken humerus. Alejandro Sanchez Jr. sustained minor scrapes and cuts, and a burn to his left arm. Briana Sanchez sustained fatal injuries. The hospital lien for Alejandro Sanchez totals $48,728.44. (Declaration of Jennifer A. Kung Gelini (Gelini Dec.) 13.)

Moving Defendants have offered $1,000,000.00 to all claimants involved in the accident, to be funded from an insurance policy. At a mediation, Moving Defendants and the claimants reached a tentative settlement in which the 6 passengers in Plaintiffs’ vehicle are to receive $850,000.00 to be shared between them. The remaining $150,000.00 is to be paid to passengers and drivers in other vehicles.

B. Allocation of Settlement

The $1,000,000 policy has been allocated as follows:

$52,500 to Vehicle #1 (Toyota pickup truck) – 4 passengers, 4 claimants, in the Menchaca suit filed in Fresno County Superior Court

$850,000 to Vehicle #2 (Lincoln Navigator) – these settling Plaintiffs and 3 additional plaintiffs in the separate Duarte suit filed in Fresno County Superior Court

$35,000 to Vehicle #3 (2017 GMC Savana) – 1 plaintiff

$2,500 to subrogation claim of Vehicle #3

$25,000 to Vehicle #4 (Infiniti QX60) 2 passengers, driver received $25,000, passenger recovers $0.00, and subrogation claims recovers $0.00

$35,000 to Vehicle #5 (Ford Ranger) 1 passenger, Morales suit filed in Fresno County Superior Court

(Gelini Dec. 12.)

C. Financial considerations

On October 16, 2020, Moving Defendants tendered their $1,000,000 insurance policy to all claimants. (Gelini Dec. 9.) The only asset available is the $1,000,000.00 insurance policy. Moving Defendants have no assets or any other insurance coverage. (Gelini Dec. 11.) The amount paid by Moving Defendants is the most that Plaintiffs can ever recover from Moving Defendants for this loss. (Gelini Dec. 15.)

D. Collusion or fraud

There is no evidence of fraud or collusion between Plaintiffs and Moving Defendants. The negotiation was held at arm’s length and required the assistance of a mediator. The parties participated in several follow-up discussions concerning assets and insurance. (Gelini Dec. 16.)

E. Weighing the Tech-Bilt factors

The Court has weighed the Tech-Bilt factors. The Court finds that the settlement is “in the ballpark” in light of the information known at the time of the settlement, Moving Defendants’ financial condition, and the lack of evidence that Moving Defendants’ potential liability is disproportionate to the settlement amount. Therefore, the Court grants Moving Defendants’ motion for a good faith settlement determination.

CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS the application for good faith settlement determination of Defendants Deudiel Juarez Ramirez and H&M Trucking and Equipment Rental of Dinuba. The Court dismisses all pending and future claims against Defendants Deudiel Juarez Ramirez and H&M Trucking and Equipment Rental of Dinuba by the parties served with this motion (to the extent those claims arise from the facts giving rise to this case), including cross-complaints for equitable indemnity.

Moving Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Defendants are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

Case Number: *******5543 Hearing Date: July 6, 2023 Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On May 10, 2022, Plaintiffs Alejandro Sanchez, Sr (“Alejandro”Al)., Emmitt Sanchez and Araceli Hernandez filed this action against Defendants Ford Motor Company, Tutor Perini Corporation, Zachry Construction Corporation, Parsons Corporation, Paccar Inc., Deudiel Juarez Ramirez (“Juarez”) and H&M Trucking and Equipment Rental of Dinuba (“H&M”) for wrongful death based on strict products liability, survival based on strict products liability, bystander liability based on strict products liability, wrongful death based on negligence, survival based on negligence, bystander liability based on negligence and negligence.

On December 12, 2022, Juarez and H&M filed an answer. No other defendants have answered or appeared in the action.

On June 5, 2023, Juarez and H&M (“Moving Defendants”) filed a Motion for Good Faith Settlement to be heard on July 6, 2023. No party has filed an opposition.

Trial is currently set for November 7, 2023.

PARTIES’ REQUEST

Moving Defendants request that the Court find their settlement with Plaintiffs is in good faith.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (a)(2) states that “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. 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. . . .”

“The issue of the good faith of a settlement may be determined by the court on the basis of affidavits served with the notice of hearing, and any counteraffidavits filed in response, or the court may, in its discretion, receive other evidence at the hearing.” (Code Civ. Proc., 877.6, subd. (b).) “The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.” (Code Civ. Proc., 877.6, subd. (d).)

In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499, the California Supreme Court identified the following nonexclusive factors courts must consider in determining if a settlement is in good faith under section 877.6: “a rough approximation of plaintiffs' total recovery and the settlor's proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial. Other relevant considerations include the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants, as well as the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.”

DISCUSSION

This lawsuit arises out of a multi-vehicle collision. Juarez was driving a vehicle for H&M at the time of the accident. Juarez’s vehicle allegedly rear-ended a truck, which was subsequently pushed into Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Plaintiffs’ vehicle was pushed into another car in front of it and subsequently caught fire. One of the passengers in Plaintiffs’ vehicle died from her injuries; the other passengers were injured. This action is being brought by 3 of the 6 passengers in Plaintiffs’ vehicle. The other 3 passengers filed a separate suit.

Moving Defendants have offered $1,000,000.00 to all claimants involved in the accident, to be funded from an insurance policy. At a mediation, Moving Defendants and the claimants reached a tentative settlement in which the 6 passengers in Plaintiffs’ vehicle are to receive $850,000.00 to be shared between them. $150,000.00 is to be paid to passengers and drivers in other vehicles.

As noted, Moving Defendants filed a motion asking the Court to find that the settlement is in good faith. A good faith settlement determination would “bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” (Code Civ. Proc., 877.6, subd. (c).)

Moving Defendants did not, however, serve the motion or any of the supporting papers on Defendants Ford Motor Company, Tutor Perini Corporation, Zachry Construction Corporation, Paccar Inc. or Parsons Corporation. “[D]ue process requires notice to other joint tortfeasors who are not presently parties to the action but whose rights may be affected by a ‘good faith’ determination (because 877.6(c) bars indemnity claims of party and nonparty joint tortfeasors [citation]).” (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide, Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2022) 12:860, p. 12(ii)-99.) “Failure to serve nonparties is not ground for denying a 877.6 motion. But it exposes the settling defendant to potential liability to nonparties because due process precludes a party from setting up the ‘good faith’ determination against someone who did not have notice and an opportunity to contest it.” (Id., 12:860.1, p. 12(ii)-99.)

Moving Defendants assert: “It bears pointing out that Ford Motor Company, PACCAR Inc., Tutor Perini Corporation, Zachry Construction Company, and Parsons Corporation were not involved in the mediation. These defendants were brought in by these Plaintiffs in this separate lawsuit alleging different causes of action. This present complaint was filed long after the settling parties reached their settlement.” (Memorandum of Points and Authorities, unnumbered page.) Of course, Moving Defendants are seeking a good faith settlement determination in this case, in which Ford Motor Company, PACCAR Inc., Tutor Perini Corporation, Zachry Construction Company, and Parsons Corporation are parties, although they have not appeared. In any event, the Court of Appeal has rejected the suggestion that later-named defendants may be bound by a good faith settlement determination if they were not given notice. (See Gackstetter v. Frawley (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1273 [“A settling tortfeasor's section 877.6, subdivision (c) good faith settlement determination discharges indemnity claims by other tortfeasors, whether or not named as parties, so long as the other tortfeasors were given notice and an opportunity to be heard”]; Singer Co. v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal. App. 3d 875, 892.)

Because Moving Defendants did not serve their motion for good faith settlement determination on Defendants Ford Motor Company, PACCAR Inc., Tutor Perini Corporation, Zachry Construction Company, and Parsons Corporation, the Court denies the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendants Deudiel Juarez Ramirez and H&M Trucking and Equipment Rental of Dinuba’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is DENIED.

Moving Defendants Deudiel Juarez Ramirez and H&M Trucking and Equipment Rental of Dinuba are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Defendants Deudiel Juarez Ramirez and H&M Trucking and Equipment Rental of Dinuba are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.