JUANA ROSALES ARCIGA VS GALO ENTERTAINMENT, INC. DBA CLUB GIGGLES, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******5310 Hearing Date: March 21, 2025 Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

NOTICE:

The Court is requesting oral argument on this matter. The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested. Any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party's intention to appear and argue. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS:

Juana Rosales Arciga (Plaintiff) brings this action against Galo Entertainment, Inc. dba Club Giggles (Galo), La Diosa Nightclub (La Diosa), Michael Fields (Fields), Julio Fields Anya (Anya), Hawk One, Inc. (Hawk One), Black Hawks Private Security LLC (Black Hawks) and Jason Ledesma dba Blackhawks Private Security (Ledesma).

Plaintiff brings this claims for wrongful death on behalf of her daughter Nayeli Rosales (Decedent). Plaintiff alleges that on April 21, 2024, Decedent was a patron of a nightclub located at 215 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale, CA 91203. (Compl. ¶ ¶ 10, 15.) Decedent, heavily intoxicated, was at some point escorted out of the club and into a back alleyway. (Compl. ¶ 15.) Decedent is alleged to have then fallen to the ground, where she was later run over by a vehicle operated by Fields. (Id.)

Before the Court is a motion for determination of a good faith settlement between Plaintiff and Galo pursuant to C.C.P. ; 877.6. No party has filed an opposition to the motion.

ANALYSIS:

I. LEGAL STANDARD

In a case involving two or more alleged joint tortfeasors, a party may seek a court order under C.C.P. ; 877.6 determining that a settlement between the plaintiff and one or more of the alleged tortfeasors is in good faith. A judicial determination of good faith "bar[s] any other joint tortfeasor ... from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor ... for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault." (C.C.P. ; 877.6(c).) The statute sets forth two procedures by which a settling party can seek the Court's determination of good faith.

The first procedure is outlined by C.C.P. ; 877.6(a)(1), which provides in relevant part:

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.

The second procedure is outlined by C.C.P. ; 877.6(a)(2), which provides in relevant part:

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 serviceHowever, this paragraph shall not apply to settlements in which a confidentiality agreement has been entered into regarding the case or the terms of the settlement.

Notice of a motion pursuant to C.C.P. ; 877.6(a)(1) must not only be served on all parties to the litigation, but also on tortfeasors not yet named who are "likely" defendants. (Singer Co. v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 875, 892.)

II. MERITS

CRC Rule 3.1382

The Court first notes that Galo's notice of motion does not contain the information required by CRC Rule 3.1382. The notice of motion or application for determination of good faith settlement must list each party and pleading or portion of pleading affected by the settlement and the date on which the affected pleading was filed. (CRC Rule 3.1382.) The notice submitted does not list the parties or pleadings affected by this motion.

Failure to Serve La Diosa Nightclub

The Court next notes that Galo's proof of service indicates that they failed to serve notice of the motion upon La Diosa.

Due process requires a "joint tortfeasor whose potential liability is known, or reasonably should be known, to the settling parties" to be given opportunity to be heard on a motion for good faith settlement. (Singer Co. v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 875, 881.) The due process right to be heard is satisfied when a party is informed the matter is pending so he or she can choose whether or not to contest it. (Bradshaw v. Park (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1278, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 872.)

As a named defendant in this action, La Diosa is entitled to due process prior to the Court's determination of Galo's settlement. The Court further notes that no proof of service has been filed for La Diosa. It is entirely unclear whether La Diosa is even aware of this action.

Service Upon Hawk One, Black Hawks, and Ledesma

The Court is also uncertain that there was sufficient due process required to decide that Hawk One, Black Hawks, and Ledesma.

Plaintiff served the Complaint on Hawk One, Black Hawks, and Ledesma on December 4, 2024 at 1110 S. Rita Way Santa Ana, ACA 92704. (See December 9, 2024 Proofs of Service.) Each proof of service is identical, showing that service was effectuated via substitute service upon a "Jane Doe" at 5:01 p.m. Despite the fact that the time to respond has long since expired, Plaintiff has yet to take the default of any defendant. Plaintiff was required under CRC Rule 3.110(g) to request the entry of default within 10 days after the time for Hawk One, Black Hawks, and Ledesma to respond elapsed.

At the time the motion was filed (January 3, 2025), Hawk One, Black Hawks, and Ledesma had not yet appeared in this action. On January 29, 2024, Ledesma filed an Answer to the Complaint, and he is now represented by counsel. Hawk One and Black Hawks have still not appeared.

The proof of service attached to Galo's motion shows that Hawk One, Black Hawks, and Ledesma were served via U.S. mail to the same address listed in Plaintiff's Complaint. (Mot. p. 12.) Although Ledesma has now appeared, there is no indication that the service of Hawk One and Black Hawk at the S. Rita Way address resulted in their actual notice of the lawsuit. The Court is loath to enter a determination of good faith settlement where two corporations have been served by substitute service, where Plaintiff is over two months tardy in requesting the entry of default, and where notice of the motion was only served via mail to the substitute service address.

Conclusion

Given the concerns voiced above, the Court continues this motion to April 4, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. Galo is ordered to serve an amended notice of motion which adheres to CRC Rule 3.1382 upon all defendants. Galo is to submit its proof of service for the amended notice no later than March 27, 2025 at 12:00 p.m.

---

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court's records.

ORDER

Galo Entertainment, Inc. dba Club Giggles' Motion For Determination of Good Faith Settlement came on regularly for hearing on March 21, 2025, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION IS CONTINUED TO APRIL 4, 2025 AT 9:00 A.M.

DEFENDANT GALO ENTERTAINMENT IS ORDERED TO SUBMIT ITS AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE UPON ALL DEFENDANTS NO LATER THAN MARCH 27, 2025 AT 12:00 P.M.

DEFENDANT GALO ENTERTAINMENT TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.