This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/03/2019 at 03:58:30 (UTC).

GUANGYAO SHA ET AL VS SMART & FINAL STORES INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/27/2017 GUANGYAO SHA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against SMART FINAL STORES INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is AMY D. HOGUE. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1175

  • Filing Date:

    10/27/2017

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

AMY D. HOGUE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

SHA GUANGYAO

LI LI

Defendants and Respondents

FERNANDEZ CARLOS

SMART & FINAL STORES INC

DOES 1 TO 50

ROAD DOGS DOE 1

ROAD DOG DRIVERS LLC - DOE 2

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

PANISH BRIAN J. ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

CLANCEY CLIFFORD A. ESQ.

BEAN HEATHER M.

SMITH ALICE CHEN

 

Court Documents

NOTICE BF INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

3/9/2018: NOTICE BF INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE FORM FOR PERSONAL INJURY COURTS

3/9/2018: INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE FORM FOR PERSONAL INJURY COURTS

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

4/2/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/20/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

7/13/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

7/27/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

8/3/2018: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

NOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT-CIVIL

8/16/2018: NOTICE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT-CIVIL

DEFENDANT ROAD DOG DRIVERS, LLC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

9/14/2018: DEFENDANT ROAD DOG DRIVERS, LLC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

Amendment to Cross-Complaint

12/31/2018: Amendment to Cross-Complaint

Response

3/27/2019: Response

Declaration

3/27/2019: Declaration

Notice of Joinder

3/27/2019: Notice of Joinder

Declaration

5/14/2019: Declaration

Substitution of Attorney

5/21/2019: Substitution of Attorney

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

12/6/2017: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Unknown

12/6/2017: Unknown

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

11/15/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

22 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/21/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by SMART & FINAL STORES INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Notice (of Association); Filed by SMART & FINAL STORES INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Declaration (Declaration of Erika Contreras in Opposition to Defendant Road Dog Drivers LLC's Second Ex Parte Application to Continue the Trial Date); Filed by GUANGYAO SHA (Plaintiff); LI LI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4; Jury Trial - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by SMART & FINAL STORES INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • Notice of Joinder (Name Extension) (Plaintiffs Li Li and Guangyao Sha's Notice of Joidner to Defendant Road Dog Drivers' Opposition to Defendant Smart & Final Stores Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by GUANGYAO SHA (Plaintiff); LI LI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • Declaration (Declaration in Opposition to Road Dogs' Ex Parte Motion to Continue Trial); Filed by SMART & FINAL STORES INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • Response (Plaintiffs Li Li and Guangyao Sha's Response to Defendant's Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by GUANGYAO SHA (Plaintiff); LI LI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • Declaration (Declaration of Erika Contreras in Support of Plaintiffs Li Li and Guangyao Sha's Opposition to Defendant Smart & Final Stores Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by GUANGYAO SHA (Plaintiff); LI LI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
38 More Docket Entries
  • 12/06/2017
  • NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2017
  • Receipt; Filed by SMART & FINAL STORES INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2017
  • Summons; Filed by SMART & FINAL STORES INC (Defendant); CARLOS FERNANDEZ (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by GUANGYAO SHA (Plaintiff); LI LI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by GUANGYAO SHA (Plaintiff); LI LI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by GUANGYAO SHA (Plaintiff); LI LI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC681175    Hearing Date: December 18, 2019    Dept: J

HEARING DATE: Wednesday, December 18, 2019

NOTICE: Motions #1 and #2: See below[1]

RE: Sha, et al. v. Smart & Final Stores, Inc., et al. (BC681175; C/W BC662018)

______________________________________________________________________________

 

1. Defendant Road Dog Drivers, LLC’s MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD

FAITH SETTLEMENT

Responding Party: None (unopposed, as of 12/11/19, 11:37 a.m.)

2. Defendants Smart & Final Stores’ and Carlos Fernandez’s MOTION FOR

DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

Responding Party: Defendant, Road Dog Drivers, LLC

Tentative Ruling

1. Defendant Road Dog Drivers, LLC’s unopposed Motion for Determination of Good Faith

Settlement is GRANTED.

2. Defendants Smart & Final Stores’ and Carlos Fernandez’s Motion for

Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.

Background

Case No. BC662018

Plaintiff Rudy Anthony Palomares (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he sustained injuries in an April 2,

2016 motor vehicle collision. On May 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of

action against Defendants Smart & Final Stores, Inc., Smart & Final Stores LLC, Penske Truck

Leasing Co., L.P.’s (erroneously sued as LSG/Rental Company Penske) (“Penske”), Carlos A.

Cornejo Fernandez (“Fernandez”) and Does 1-100 for:

  1. Motor Vehicle

  2. General Negligence

On August 30, 2017, Smart & Final Stores, LLC (erroneously sued as Smart & Final Stores, Inc.) (“Smart & Final”) and Fernandez filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against

Roes 1-20 for:

  1. Equitable Indemnification

  2. Equitable Contribution

  3. Declaratory Relief

On April 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint, wherein Road Dog Drivers, LLC (“RDD”) was named in lieu of Doe 1.

On October 5, 2018, the court related Case No. BC681175 to this instant case and deemed this instant case to be the lead case. On November 1, 2018, the cases were ordered consolidated.

On December 31, 2018, Smart & Final and Fernandez filed an Amendment to Cross-Complaint, wherein RDD was named in lieu of Roe 1.

On May 15, 2019, this action was transferred from the personal injury hub (Department 4B) to this department.

On May 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Notice of Settlement of Entire Case as to Plaintiff only, in this instant case only.

On June 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement with respect to RDD. On June 28, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed Smart & Final, Penske and Fernandez, with prejudice. On July 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a dismissal as to “[a]ll Defendants EXCEPT Road Dog Drivers, LLC,” with prejudice.

On July 15, 2019, an “Order Approving Good Faith Settlement” as between Plaintiff and RDD was filed. On August 14, 2019, an “Order Granting Smart & Final Stores, LLC, Carlos Fernandez, and Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P.’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement” was filed.

On September 13, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed RDD with prejudice.

The Final Status Conference is set for May 18, 2010. Trial is set for May 26, 2020.

Case No. BC681175

Plaintiffs Guangyao Sha and Li Li (“Sha/Li”) allege that they sustained injuries in an April 2,

2016 motor vehicle collision. On October 27, 2017, Sha/Li filed a complaint, asserting causes of

action against Defendants Smart & Final Stores, Inc., Fernandez and Does 1-100 for:

  1. Negligence

On December 6, 2017, Smart & Final Stores, LLC (erroneously sued as Smart & Final Stores, Inc.) (“Smart & Final”) and Fernandez filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against

Roes 1-20 for:

  1. Equitable Indemnification

  2. Equitable Contribution

  3. Declaratory Relief

On April 2, 2018, Sha/Li filed an Amendment to Complaint, wherein Road Dogs was named in lieu of Doe 1. On August 3, 2018, Sha/Li filed another Amendment to Complaint, wherein RDD was named in lieu of Doe 2.

On October 5, 2018, the court related this case to Case No. BC662018 and designated Case No. BC662018 as the lead case. On November 1, 2018, the cases were ordered consolidated.

On December 31, 2018, Smart & Final and Fernandez filed an Amendment to Cross-Complaint, wherein RDD was named in lieu of Roe 1.

On October 11, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a conditional “Notice of Settlement of Entire Case.”

The Final Status Conference is set for May 18, 2010. Trial is set for May 26, 2020.

1. RDD’s Motion for Good Faith Settlement

Legal Standard

When a party is seeking a good-faith settlement determination, “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.” CCP § 877.6(a)(1).

“A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall 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.” (CCP § 877.6(c).)

“[T]he intent and policies underlying section 877.6 require that a number of factors be taken into account including 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. Finally, practical considerations obviously require that the evaluation be made on the basis of information available at the time of the settlement.” (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.)

Additionally, “the trial court’s good faith determination must take into account the settling tortfeasor’s potential liability for indemnity to a cotortfeasor, as well as then settling tortfeasor’s potential liability to the plaintiff.” (Far West Financial Corp. v. D&S Co. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 796, 816, fn. 16.) “If section 877.6 is to serve the ends of justice, it must prevent a party from purchasing protection from its indemnification obligation at bargain-basement prices.” (Long Beach Memorial Medical Center v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 865, 876.) “[A] defendant’s settlement figure must not be grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person, at the time of the settlement, would estimate the settling defendant’s liability to be.” (Torres v. Union Pacific R. Co. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 499, 509.) As long as the settlement is not so far “out of the ballpark” in relation to the above factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6, the settlement shall be determined as being made in good faith. (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at 499-500.)

“If the good faith settlement is contested, section 877.6 subdivision (d), sets forth a workable ground rule for the hearing by placing the burden of proving the lack of good faith on the contesting party. Once there is a showing made by the settlor of the settlement, the burden of proof on the issue of good faith shifts to the non-settlor who asserts that the settlement was not made in good faith. If contested, declarations by the other non-settlor should be filed which in many cases could require the moving party to file responsive counterdeclarations to negate the lack of good faith asserted by the non-settling contested party.” (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261-1262.)

Discussion

RDD moves the court, per CCP § 877.6, for a determination that the settlement reached between Sha/Li, on the one hand, and RDD, on the other hand, was made in good faith.

“[O]nly when the good faith nature of a settlement is disputed, it is incumbent upon the trial court to consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors. That is to say, when no one objects, the barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is sufficient.” (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.) No non-settling defendant has objected to the settlement.

The court determines that RDD’s motion meets this lower threshold.

Accordingly, the court determines that the settlement entered into between Sha/Li, on the one hand, and RDD, on the other hand, was made in good faith. Thus, the unopposed motion is GRANTED.

2. Smart & Final’s and Fernandez’s Motion for Good Faith Settlement

Legal Standard

See Motion #1.

Discussion

Smart & Final and Fernandez move the court, per CCP § 877.6 et seq., for a determination that the settlement reached between Smart & Final and Fernandez, on the one hand, and Sha/Li, on the other hand, was made in good faith. Plaintiffs have agreed to settle with Smart & Final/Fernandez for a payment of $750,000.00 in exchange for Plaintiffs’ execution of a full release of all claims, known and unknown, past and present, including a waiver of Civil Code § 1542.

Smart & Final and Fernandez submits as follows: On or about May 26, 2019, Smart & Final entered into a Driving Leasing Agreement with RDD, wherein RDD agreed to provide licensed and certified drivers to Smart & Final. (Hand Decl., ¶5, Exh. C.) On April 2, 2016, Smart & Final contacted RDD for an agency driver for the Commerce warehouse. (Id., ¶6.) Fernandez was assigned by RDD. (Id.) Fernandez was operating a Penske tractor leased by Smart & Final and a Smart & Final trailer at the time of the accident. (Id., ¶7, Exh. D.)

At the time of the incident, Sha was 58 years old, working at Monique Lhullier as a seamstress where he is presently employed. (Id., ¶8, Exh. E.) He does not attribute any loss of income or earning capacity to the accident. (Id.) Sha suffered, and continues to suffer, from lower back pain, numbness shooting down his left leg and foot, neck and shoulder pain, bilateral arm pain with numbness, face injury from glass, and difficulty sleeping as a result of the incident. (Id.) Sha’s medical bills totaled $27,349.00. (Id., ¶9, Exh. F.) Since the accident, Sha received treatment including epidurals, fluoroscopy, chiropractic care, orthopedic care, and pain management along with x-rays and an MRI. (Id., ¶8, Exh. E.) Sha received an epidural for chronic pain. (Id.) Sha has been advised he will need a cane. (Id.) Plaintiffs’ vehicle required $6,467.10 worth of repairs but was considered a total loss. (Id..)

At the time of the incident, Li was 58 years old, working at Monique Lhullier as a seamstress where she is presently employed. (Id., ¶8, Exh. G.) She does not attribute any loss of income or earning capacity to the accident. (Id.) Li suffered, and continues to suffer, from head pain, dizziness, memory loss, headaches, difficulty sleeping, neck injury, left shoulder injury, reduced range of motion in her left shoulder, left arm pain and numbness, left hand pain and numbness, and chest and back pain as a result of the incident. (Id.) Lin’s medical bills totaled $16,281.00. (Id., ¶11, Exh. H.) Since the accident, Li received treatment including neurology, orthopedic, and pain management consultations, alone with x-rays and an MRI. (Id.) Li received an epidural for chronic pain. (Id.)

RDD claims that the motion fails to provide competent and admissible evidence to support a determination of good faith settlement, because Plaintiffs’ discovery responses attached as Exhibits E-H thereto are not accompanied by verifications and because moving defendants conclude that they have “limited liability exposure, if any,” without supporting said statement with competent and admissible evidence. RDD also complains that it is unclear if the terms of the settlement agreement attempt to preclude RDD’s insurer from seeking reimbursement of payments and costs from the carrier for moving defendants.

RDD, however, has failed to satisfy its burden of proof to show why the subject settlement is “so far out of the ballpark” as to be inconsistent with the equitable goals of the statute. (See Long Beach Memorial Medical Center v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 865, 873.) Smart & Final and Fernandez have attached discovery verifications, which they represent were inadvertently omitted from the moving papers, as Exhibit A to their reply brief. RDD has not presented any admissible evidence that the amount of the settlement or the procedure used by the settling parties to reach settlement reflects any indicia of bad faith. RDD has not presented any admissible evidence to support a finding that Smart & Final/Fernandez is liable for the accident beyond what they have agreed upon in the settlement and why they should bear any further share of liability of the total claimed damages. RDD concedes that Smart & Final would contact RDD to request a temporary commercial driver, that RDD would then provide its driver with the time and location of the assignment, and that RDD would administer the payroll for its driver. (Opposition, 4:9-15.) RDD conducted Fernandez’s background beck and cleared him as a qualified commercial vehicle driver, conducted drug screenings, and agreed to provide licensed and certified drivers to Smart & Final. (Id., 4:16-26; Hand Decl., ¶5, Exh. C.) RDD, moreover, has not provided any evidence of a coverage dispute between it and Smart & Final.

The court determines that RDD has not carried its burden of showing a lack of good faith in this settlement. Accordingly, Smart & Final’s and Fernandez’s motion is GRANTED.


[1] Motion #1 was filed (and served via FedEx) on November 12, 2019 under Case No. BC662018 (re-filed on November 14, 2019 in Case No. BC681175) and set for hearing on December 10, 2019. Motion #2 was filed in Case No. BC681175 on October 11, 2019 and originally set for hearing on November 13, 2019. On November 13, 2019, the court continued the hearing on Motion #2 to December 10, 2019. On December 5, 2019, the court rescheduled the hearing on Motions #1 #2, on its own motion, to January 3, 2020. On December 6, 2019, the court rescheduled the hearing on Motions #1 and #2 to December 18, 2019. There is no indication on ecourt that notice of the December 18, 2019 hearing date was provided.

Case Number: BC681175    Hearing Date: November 13, 2019    Dept: J

HEARING DATE: Wednesday, November 13, 2019

NOTICE: OK

RE: Sha, et al. v. Smart & Final Stores, Inc., et al. (BC681175; C/W BC662018)

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Defendants Smart & Final Stores’ and Carlos Fernandez’s MOTION FOR

DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

Responding Party: None (unopposed, as of 10/31/19, 1:05 p.m.; due 10/30/19)

Tentative Ruling

Defendants Smart & Final Stores’ and Carlos Fernandez’s unopposed Motion for

Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.

Background

Case No. BC662018

Plaintiff Rudy Anthony Palomares (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he sustained injuries in an April 2,

2016 motor vehicle collision. On May 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of

action against Defendants Smart & Final Stores, Inc., Smart & Final Stores LLC, Penske Truck

Leasing Co., L.P.’s (erroneously sued as LSG/Rental Company Penske) (“Penske”), Carlos A.

Cornejo Fernandez (“Fernandez”) and Does 1-100 for:

  1. Motor Vehicle

  2. General Negligence

On August 30, 2017, Smart & Final Stores, LLC (erroneously sued as Smart & Final Stores, Inc.) (“Smart & Final”) and Fernandez filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against

Roes 1-20 for:

  1. Equitable Indemnification

  2. Equitable Contribution

  3. Declaratory Relief

On April 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint, wherein Road Dog Drivers, LLC (“RDD”) was named in lieu of Doe 1.

On October 5, 2018, the court related Case No. BC681175 to this instant case and deemed this instant case to be the lead case. On November 1, 2018, the cases were ordered consolidated.

On December 31, 2018, Smart & Final and Fernandez filed an Amendment to Cross-Complaint, wherein RDD was named in lieu of Roe 1.

On May 15, 2019, this action was transferred from the personal injury hub (Department 4B) to this department.

On May 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Notice of Settlement of Entire Case as to Plaintiff only, in this instant case only.

On June 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement with respect to RDD. On June 28, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed Smart & Final, Penske and Fernandez, with prejudice. On July 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a dismissal as to “[a]ll Defendants EXCEPT Road Dog Drivers, LLC,” with prejudice.

On July 15, 2019, an “Order Approving Good Faith Settlement” as between Plaintiff and RDD was filed. On August 14, 2019, the court granted Smart & Final’s and Fernandez’s motion for determination of good faith settlement.

On September 13, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed RDD with prejudice.

A Final Status Conference is set for May 18, 2020. Trial is set for May 26, 2020.

Case No. BC681175

Plaintiffs Guangyao Sha and Li Li (“Sha/Li”) allege that they sustained injuries in an April 2,

2016 motor vehicle collision. On October 27, 2017, Sha/Li filed a complaint, asserting causes of

action against Defendants Smart & Final Stores, Inc., Fernandez and Does 1-100 for:

  1. Negligence

On December 6, 2017, Smart & Final Stores, LLC (erroneously sued as Smart & Final Stores, Inc.) (“Smart & Final”) and Fernandez filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against

Roes 1-20 for:

  1. Equitable Indemnification

  2. Equitable Contribution

  3. Declaratory Relief

On April 2, 2018, Sha/Li filed an Amendment to Complaint, wherein Road Dogs was named in lieu of Doe 1. On August 3, 2018, Sha/Li filed another Amendment to Complaint, wherein RDD was named in lieu of Doe 2.

On October 5, 2018, the court related this case to Case No. BC662018 and designated Case No. BC662018 as the lead case. On November 1, 2018, the cases were ordered consolidated.

On December 31, 2018, Smart & Final and Fernandez filed an Amendment to Cross-Complaint, wherein RDD was named in lieu of Roe 1.

On October 11, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a conditional “Notice of Settlement of Entire Case.”

Legal Standard

When a party is seeking a good-faith settlement determination, “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.” CCP § 877.6(a)(1).

“[T]he intent and policies underlying section 877.6 require that a number of factors be taken into account including 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. Finally, practical considerations obviously require that the evaluation be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement. ‘[A] defendant's settlement figure must not be grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person, at the time of the settlement, would estimate the settling defendant's liability to be.’ The party asserting the lack of good faith, who has the burden of proof on that issue (§ 877.6, subd. (d)), should be permitted to demonstrate, if he can, that the settlement is so far ‘out of the ballpark’ in relation to these factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute. Such a demonstration would establish that the proposed settlement was not a ‘settlement made in good faith’ within the terms of section 877.6.” (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499-500 [citations omitted].)

Discussion

Smart & Final and Fernandez move the court, per CCP § 877.6 et seq., for a determination that the settlement reached between Smart & Final and Fernandez, on the one hand, and Sha/Li, on the other hand, was made in good faith.

“[O]nly when the good faith nature of a settlement is disputed, it is incumbent upon the trial court to consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors. That is to say, when no one objects, the barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is sufficient.” (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.) No non-settling defendant has objected to the settlement.

The court determines that Smart & Final’s and Fernandez’s motion meets this lower threshold.

Accordingly, the court determines that the settlement entered into between Smart & Final and Fernandez, on the one hand, and Sha/Li, on the other hand, was made in good faith. Thus, the unopposed motion is GRANTED.