SUSAN RUSSOESI ET AL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC676442    Hearing Date: December 19, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

On September 19, 2017, plaintiffs Susan Russolesi and Ronald Russolesi (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against the City of Los Angeles alleging negligence and loss of consortium concerning a tree branch falling off a parkway tree and injuring Susan Russolesi. On December 7, 2018, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to add defendants Linh Do (erroneously sued as “Do Lin”), Bich Le, Victor Herrera and Cristina Herrera. Plaintiffs served the First Amended Complaint on Victor Herrera and Cristina Herrera by substitute service on January 10, 2019. They have not answered and were dismissed from this action on November 4, 2019.

Linh Do and Bich Le (“Settling Defendants”) move for an order determining their settlement of $100,000.00 is in good faith. Plaintiffs, Settling Defendants, and City of Los Angeles filed a stipulation to a judicial determination of a good faith settlement.

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.)

Settling Defendants agree to pay $100,000 to Plaintiffs in order to settle the matter. This amount is the policy limit of their homeowner’s insurance. Plaintiff Susan Russolesi’s medical expenses to date total $50,388 and she also claims $77,2780.60 in future medical expenses, and other miscellaneous expenses (housekeeper and cancelled vacation) of $5,3000. Plaintiff Ronald Russolesi claims unspecific damages for loss of consortium. Plaintiffs allege that the City of Los Angeles received multiple complaints of tree branches falling from dead or dying trees near Settling Defendant’s property as early as 2015, and that Settling Defendants were on notice of the tree. The City of Los Angeles did not file an opposition to this Motion and entered into a stipulation of good faith. The settlement agreement was reached during mediation with Judicate West.

Having considered the Tech-Bilt factors, the Court finds that the settlement figure of $100,000 is within the “ballpark.” Settling Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED. The Court finds this settlement was made in good faith and any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor is barred from asserting further claims against Linh Do and Bich Le for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.

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.

Case Number: BC676442    Hearing Date: November 04, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

On September 19, 2017, plaintiffs Susan Russolesi and Ronald Russolesi (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against the City of Los Angeles. Plaintiffs allege negligence and loss of consortium concerning a tree branch falling off a parkway tree and injuring Susan Russolesi. On December 7, 2018, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to add defendants Linh Do (erroneously sued as “Do Lin”), Bich Le, Victor Herrera and Cristina Herrera. Plaintiffs served the First Amended Complaint on Victor Herrera and Cristina Herrera by substitute service on January 10, 2019. They have not answered.

Linh Do and Bich Le (“Settling Defendants”) move for an order determining their settlement of $100,000.00 is in good faith. Plaintiffs, Settling Defendants and City of Los Angeles filed a stipulation to a judicial determination of a good faith settlement.

However, Settling Defendants did not file a proof of service showing service of the motion for determination of good faith settlement on defendants Victor Herrera and Cristina Herrera. The court cannot rule on the motion in the absence of notice to all parties. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

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 as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.