VINDRI RODRIGUEZ VS CEDAR CORPORATION

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****5198    Hearing Date: March 05, 2020    Dept: 29

Rodriguez v. Cedar Corp.

Motion by Defendant, Contract Décor, Inc (Doe 1), Contesting the Good Faith Settlement Between Plaintiff, Vindri Rodriguez, and Defendant, Cedar Corporation dba McDonald’s #2963 is DENIED. The Court approves the settlement pursuant to section 877.6(a)(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

1/17/2020, Cedar Corporation (“McDonald’s”) filed an Amended Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement, indicating it settled with Plaintiff for $275,000.00. Defendant Contract Décor, Inc. (“Décor”), filed this motion to contest settlement.

The burden of establishing that a settlement was not made in good faith falls on the contesting party, Décor. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. ; 877.6(d); L. C. Rudd & Son, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 742, 748.) The settling party, McDonald’s, need only demonstrate that a settlement has been made. The burden shifts to the contesting party to demonstrate that the settlement does not meet the relevant factors for determination of good faith settlement under Tech-Bilt v. Inc. v. Woodward Clyde Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1261-1262.)

The factors identified in Tech-Bilt are not to be rigidly applied. North County Contractor's Assn. v. Touchstone Ins. Services (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 1085, 1090. Those factors are:

1. Approximation of plaintiff’s total recovery and settlor’s proportionate liability.

2. The amount paid in settlement.

3. Recognition that the settlor should pay less in settlement.

4. Allocation of the settlement proceeds.

5. The settlor’s financial condition and insurance policy limits.

6. Evidence of collusion, fraud or tortious conduct between the settlor and plaintiff.

7. The settlement must be within the reasonable range of the settlor’s share of liability.

Determination is based on information available at the time of settlement. The settlement should not be “grossly disproportionate” to what a reasonable person would estimate the settling party’s liability to be. (Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1349.)

Décor has not met its evidentiary burden of demonstrating that the settlement was not made in good faith. Decor has not presented any evidence that the settlement is grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person would estimate the settling party’s liability to be or that there is any collusion, fraud or tortious conduct between the settling parties. Nor is there evidence that would support a finding a bad faith based on any other Tech Bilt factor.

Thus, the Court denies Decor’s motion to contest the settlement.

The Court approves the settlement pursuant to section 877.6(a)(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and thereby determines that the settlement was in good faith. The Court’s determination 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(c).)

Moving party is ordered to give notice.