Case Number: BC608482 Hearing Date: June 12, 2019 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5

soufiane chibane,

Plaintiff,

v.

edward ovsepyan, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC608482

Hearing Date: June 12, 2019

[Tentative] order RE:

Motion for determination of good faith SETTLEMENT

Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier, LLC (“Uber”) move for a determination that the settlement between Defendants and Plaintiff Soufiane Chibane (“Plaintiff”) was made in good faith. Plaintiff seeks $50,000 from the accident, and Uber has agreed to settle for $7,500. Defendants Artem Avetisyan, SLS Car Service, Inc., and Edward Ovsepyan (the “Objecting Defendants”) oppose the motion. The motion is granted.

In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, the California Supreme Court set forth the factors to consider when determining whether a settlement is made in good faith. The Tech-Bilt factors are: (1) a rough approximation of plaintiff’s total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (4) a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial; (5) the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants; and (6) the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of the non-settling defendants. (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 498-501.)

Plaintiff alleges that a driver, Defendant Edward Ovsepyan, ran over Plaintiff’s foot following a confrontation on or about August 12, 2015. There is no dispute that Ovsepyan was using the Uber application at the incident and that Plaintiff reported that fact to the police officers who responded to the scene. Based upon the foregoing, the Objecting Defendants argue that Ovsepyan was driving in the course and scope of his employment with Uber, and therefore Uber may be liable, as well.

An employer may be liable for an intentional tort that a driver committed while driving on its behalf. (See John Y. v. Chaparral Treatment Center, Inc. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 565, 575.) However, there is a real question whether Plaintiff’s action against Uber would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. In fact, Plaintiff did not add Uber via Doe amendment until October 7, 2017, which is more than two years after the date of the accident at issue. To preserve the statute of limitations, a plaintiff must be truly ignorant of the identity of a person that the plaintiff names as a Doe defendant. (See Davis v. Marin (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 380, 387.) Here, Plaintiff told the police on the date of the accident that the driver who backed into Plaintiff was using the Uber app at the time of the incident. (Declaration of Beth I. Golub, Exhibit A, p. 5.)

Based upon the foregoing, there is a real question whether Plaintiff’s action against Uber would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. For that reason alone, the Court concludes that the settlement is not “grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person at the time of settlement would estimate the settlor’s liability to be,” because there is a serious question whether Defendants are liable to Plaintiff in the first place. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1262.) Putting that aside, the Court does not find the settlement of $7,500, against a total demand of $50,000, of which $25,000 is attributable to pain and suffering, to be grossly disproportionate or necessarily objectionable, in consideration of the Tech-Bilt factors. Indeed, there is no evidence of fraud or collusion in this case. Accordingly, the motion is granted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the motion for a determination of good faith settlement is granted. The settlement between Plaintiff and Defendants is a good faith settlement per Code of Civil Procedure, section 877.6. The settlement bars any claims for indemnity against Defendants. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (c).) Uber shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: June 12, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court