This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/21/2020 at 03:16:24 (UTC).

STEPHANIE LEE VS KIYANA WILLIAMS ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/08/2018 STEPHANIE LEE filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against KIYANA WILLIAMS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CHRISTOPHER K. LUI and DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5731

  • Filing Date:

    05/08/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

LEE STEPHANIE

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

WASHINGTON EVAN

WASHINGTON WANDA

WILLIAMS KIYANA

CULBERSON LAROYCE

DOES 1 TO 50

GONZALES ANTHONY

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

WILLIAMS KIYANA

CULBERSON LAROYCE

GONZALES ANTHONY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

QUILLER DOMINIC A

Defendant and Cross Defendant Attorneys

GAMBOA KRISTINE M.

GIBBS PATRICK JOSEPH

SMITH HILARY W

SMITH HILARY W.

 

Court Documents

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER CONTINUING RESERVATION FOR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUD...) OF 09/28/2020

9/28/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER CONTINUING RESERVATION FOR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUD...) OF 09/28/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

6/16/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 06/16/2020

6/16/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 06/16/2020

Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER MOTION FOR ORDER TO DEEM R.F.A.

6/17/2020: Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER MOTION FOR ORDER TO DEEM R.F.A.

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 06/19/2020

6/19/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 06/19/2020

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 03/30/2020, MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)]

4/8/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 03/30/2020, MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)]

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 03/30/2020

3/30/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 03/30/2020

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

2/11/2020: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement (CCP 877.6)

1/8/2020: Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement (CCP 877.6)

Answer

12/31/2019: Answer

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

12/6/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Notice - NOTICE OF TAKING OFF CALENDAR MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO BE ADMITTED (SET ONE)

8/13/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF TAKING OFF CALENDAR MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO BE ADMITTED (SET ONE)

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

7/16/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

7/16/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Summons - Summons on Complaint

3/4/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Substitution of Attorney

4/25/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Civil Case Cover Sheet -

5/8/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet -

Complaint -

5/8/2018: Complaint -

40 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/25/2020
  • Hearing11/25/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2020
  • Hearing10/29/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2020
  • Hearing10/29/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Inspection and Production of Documents; Sanctions

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2020
  • Hearing10/29/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories; Sanctions

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2020
  • Hearing10/29/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories; Sanctions

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2020
  • Hearing10/29/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Continuance of Hearings on Motions for Summary Judgment); Filed by Evan Washington (Defendant); Wanda Washington (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Continuing Reservation for Motion for Summary Jud...) of 09/28/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Continuing Reservation for Motion for Summary Jud...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
57 More Docket Entries
  • 03/04/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Evan Washington (Defendant); Wanda Washington (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Evan Washington (Defendant); Wanda Washington (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Evan Washington (Defendant); Wanda Washington (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2019
  • DocketNotice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by Evan Washington (Defendant); Wanda Washington (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Wanda Washington (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2019
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Wanda Washington (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Stephanie Lee (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Stephanie Lee (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC705731    Hearing Date: February 05, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion for a Determination of a Good Faith Settlement

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

BACKGROUND

On May 8, 2018, Plaintiff Stephanie Lee (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Kiyana Williams, Anthony Gonzales, Evan Washington, Laroyce Culberson, and Wanda Washington.  The complaint alleges negligence for a multi-vehicle collision that occurred on May 14, 2017.

On March 4, 2019, Defendants/Cross-Complainants Evan Washington and Wanda Washington filed a cross-complaint against Defendants/Cross-Defendants Kiyana Williams, Anthony Gonzalez, and Laroyce Culberson.  Defendants/Cross-Complainants Evan Washington and Wanda Washington seek indemnity, apportionment, and declaratory relief.

On January 8, 2020, Defendant/Cross-Defendant Kiyana Williams filed an application for a motion of good faith settlement pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6.

Trial is set for March 6, 2020.

PARTYS REQUESTS

Defendant/Cross-Defendant Kiyana Williams (“Moving Party”) asks the Court to find that a settlement Moving Party and Plaintiff have agreed upon to have been entered in good faith.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (a)(1), provides, in relevant part, that, on noticed motion, “[a]ny party to an action wherein 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 . . . and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors . . . . “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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6, subd. (c).) Although a determination that a settlement was in good faith does not discharge any other party from liability, “it shall reduce the claims against the others in the amount stipulated” by the settlement. (Code Civ. Proc. § 877, subd. (a).)

“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 City of Grand View Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261, the court provided the following guidance regarding a motion for a good faith settlement determination:

This court notes that of the hundreds of motions for good faith determination presented for trial court approval each year, the overwhelming majority are unopposed and granted summarily by the trial court.  At the time of filing in many cases, the moving party does not know if a contest will develop.  If each motion required a full recital by declaration or affidavit setting forth a complete factual response to all of the Tech-Bilt factors, literally thousands of attorney hours would be consumed and inch-thick motions would have to be read and considered by trial courts in an exercise which would waste valuable judicial and legal time and clients’ resources. . . . 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.

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 nonsettlor who asserts that the settlement was not made in good faith. If contested, declarations by the nonsettlor 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 nonsettling contesting party.

(192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1260-1261 (citation omitted).)

In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499, the California Supreme Court identified the following nonexclusive factors courts are to 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 whether a settlement was made in good faith is required to “be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement.” (Tech-Bilt, Inc., supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 499.) “‘[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.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.)

“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.” (Id. at pp. 499-500.)

“[A] court not only looks at the alleged tortfeasor's potential liability to the plaintiff, but it must also consider the culpability of the tortfeasor vis-à-vis other parties alleged to be responsible for the same injury.  Potential liability for indemnity to a nonsettling defendant is an important consideration for the trial court in determining whether to approve a settlement by an alleged tortfeasor.  [Citation.]”  (TSI Seismic Tenant Space, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 159, 166.)

DISCUSSION

Moving Party’s counsel declares that Plaintiff has agreed to accept $8,333.33 from Moving Party and Defendant/Cross-Defendant Laroyce Culberson for a release of all claims.  (Smith Decl., ¶ 5.)  Moving Party argues that the $8,333.33 amount represents Moving Party’s pro rata share of Moving Party’s and Defendant/Cross-Defendant Laroyce Culberson’s $50,000 policy limit.  (Smith Decl., ¶ 5; Motion p. 4:5-4:9.)

The Court finds Moving Party has not submitted sufficient information showing the proposed settlement is “within the ballpark” of a good faith settlement.  Moving Party has not submitted any information regarding what Plaintiff’s total recovery Without this information, the Court cannot determine whether a $8,333.33 settlement is a sufficient basis to extinguish claims for equitable indemnity.  As such, the motion must be denied.

CONCLUSION

The motion is DENIED.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.