Case Number: BC639210 Hearing Date: October 16, 2018 Dept: 20

TENTATIVE RULING

Judge Dalila C. Lyons

Department 20

Hearing Date: Tuesday, October 16, 2018

Posted on www.lacourt.org: October 11, 2018

Case Name: Babaeva, et al. v. Jamal Properties, Inc.

Case No.: BC639210

Motion: Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Moving Party: Cross-Defendant Home Site Services, Inc.

Responding Party: *UNOPPOSED*

Notice: OK

Ruling: Cross-Defendant Home Site Services, Inc.’s motion for a determination of good faith settlement is GRANTED.

Any and all cross-complaints or claims arising out of this action against Home Site Services, Inc. for equitable comparative contribution or partial or comparative indemnity based on comparative negligence or comparative fault are barred.

Moving party to give notice.

BACKGROUND

On October 31, 2016, Plaintiffs Tamara Yuryevna Babaeva (“Tamara”), Erika Khalilova (“Erika”) a minor my and through her guardian ad litem, Draim Ali Alnajarani (“Ali”), Munerah Al Saed (“Munerah”), Arwa Draim Alnajarani (“Arwa”), Mohammad Alnajarani (“Mohammad A.”) a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Armani Alnajarani (“Armani”) a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Dorys Mey-Sajadi (“Dorys”), Mohammad Sajadi (“Mohammad S.”), Ezzat Sajadi Khonsari (“Ezzat”), and Andre Azad Sajadi (“Andre”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed the Complaint against Defendant Jamal Properties, Inc. (“Jamal Properties”) as owners of 9955 Durant Drive Apartments, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 (the “Subject Property”) and Does 1 to 50 for (1) breach of warranty of habitability (contract); (2) breach of warranty of habitability (statute); (3) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; (4) negligence; (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (7) private nuisance; (8) violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.; and (9) declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs allege the Complaint arises from the failure by Defendant as landlord, owner, and manager of the Subject Property to maintain it in a safe and habitable condition.

On October 19, 2017, Jamal Properties filed its Cross-Complaint against Mike Rovner Construction, Inc. (“Rovner Construction”), Adolfo’s Contractor Corporation (“Adolfo’s Contractor”), Carpet USA, Ltd. (“Carpet USA”), Spectrum Glass & Mirror, Inc. (“Spectrum Glass”), Encore Painting, Inc. (“Encore Painting”), Cabinets 2000, Inc. (“Cabinets 2000”, Jorge Hernandez (“Hernandez”) d/b/a JHF A/C & Heating (“JHF”), Hector E. Gonzales (“Gonzales”) d/b/a Platinum Pacific Landscape (“Platinum Landscape”), Fahrenheit Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. (“Fahrenheit Heating”), Fine Stone & Cabinetry, Inc. (“Fine Stone”), Greater Spark Contractors, Inc. (“Greater Spark”), Master Craft Iron Co., Inc. (“Master Craft”), Poornazh Fire Control, Inc. (“Poornazh Fire”), R & R Landscape Services, Inc. (“R & R Landscape”), Rag Electric, Inc. (“Rag Electric”) d/b/a Feiz Electric, Rudy Y. Barajas (“Barajas”) d/b/a Refined Construction, Seamless Flooring LA, LLC (“Seamless Flooring”), Compton Steel Co., Inc. (“Compton Steel”), DC Glass Installations, Inc. (“DC Glass”), Shani Wallcovering & Paint (“Shani Wallcovering”), Westoaks Glass & Mirror, Inc. (“Westoaks Glass”), and Roes 1 through 100[1] for (1) express indemnity; (2) equitable indemnity; (3) contribution; and (4) declaratory relief. Jamal Properties allege Rover Construction is and at all relevant times was doing business as a general contractor and the remaining cross-defendants are and at all relevant times were doing business as construction subcontractors, vendors, and/or suppliers. Jamal Properties denies it is liable for any of Plaintiffs’ alleged damages, but that any such liability is due to the construction, demolition, and renovation work performed pursuant to agreements between Jamal Properties, its parent company, and the contractor and subcontractors.

On January 10, 2018, Rovner Construction d/b/a MRC ROVCO Construction, Inc. (“MRC Construction”) filed its Cross-Complaint against Adolfo’s Contractor, Carpet USA, Home Site Services, Inc. (“Home Site”), Alliance Environmental Group, Inc. (“Alliance Environmental”), Express Contractors, Inc. (“Express Contractors”), Spectrum Glass, Encore Painting, Cabinets 2000, Hernandez d/b/a JHF, Gonzalez d/b/a Platinum Landscape, Fahrenheit Heating, Fine Stone, Greater Spark, Master Craft, Poornazh Fire, R & R Landscape, Rag Electric d/b/a Feiz Electric, Barajas d/b/a Refined Construction, Seamless Flooring, Compton Steel, DC Glass, Shani Wallcovering, Westoaks Glass, and Moes 1 through 100 for (1) express indemnity; (2) breach of contract re: failure to perform; (3) breach of contract re: duty to defend; (4) breach of contract re: indemnity; (5) equitable and implied indemnity; (6) contribution and equitable apportionment; (7) declaratory relief; (8) declaratory relief re: duty to defend; and (9) declaratory relief re: duty to indemnify.

On January 31, 2018, Gonzales d/b/a Platinum Landscape filed his Cross-Complaint against Jamal Properties, Rovner Construction, Adolfo’s Contractor, Carpet USA, Spectrum Glass, Encore Painting, Cabinets 2000, Hernandez d/b/a JHF, Fahrenheit Heating, Fine Stone, Greater Spark, Master Craft, Poornazh Fire, R & R Landscape, Rag Electric d/b/a Feiz Electric, Barajas d/b/a Refined Construction, Seamless Flooring, Compton Steel, DC Glass, Shani Wallcovering, Westoaks Glass, and Moes 1 through 100 for (1) equitable contribution and comparative indemnity; (2) total implied indemnity; and (3) declaratory relief.

On April 09, 2018, Seamless Flooring filed its Cross-Complaint against Roes 1 through 100 for (1) equitable indemnity; (2) equitable contribution; and (3) declaratory relief.

On May 03, 2018, Home Site filed its Cross-Complaint against Roes 1 to 50 for (1) indemnification; (2) apportionment of fault; and (3) declaratory relief.

On October 02, 2018, the Court dismissed with prejudice the Complaint as filed by Ali, Munerah, Arwa, Mohammad A., and Armani due to their failure to appear for their depositions in compliance with the Court’s August 28, 2018 order.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

Cross-Defendant Home Site Services, Inc. (“Home Site”) moves for an order pursuant to CCP § 877.6 find that (1) the terms of its settlement with Cross-Complainant Mike Rovner Construction, Inc. (“Rovner Construction”) in which Rovner Construction will dismiss its claims in exchange for a waiver of costs was entered into in good faith pursuant to CCP §§ 877 and 877.6 et seq.; (2) any pending claims in connection with the instant action are to be dismissed as to Home Site; and (3) the good faith settlement bars any other alleged joint tortfeasors or co-obligors from any further or future claims against Home Site for equitable comparative contribution or partial or comparative indemnity based on comparative negligence or fault.

No opposition was filed.

ANALYSIS

I. Good Faith Settlement

“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…” CCP § 877.6(a)(1). Per the California Supreme Court, “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(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.

The factors a court should look to in evaluating “good faith” within the meaning of CCP § 877.6 are (1) a rough approximation of plaintiff’s total recovery and the settler’s proportionate liability, (2) the amount paid in settlement, (3) the allocation of settlement proceeds among the various plaintiffs, (4) the financial condition of the settling defendants and their ability to respond to a judgment against them, (5) the existence of collusive, fraudulent, or other tortious conduct by the settling parties in connection with the negotiation and construction of the settlement which is injurious to the interests of the non-settling parties. Abbot Ford, Inc. v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 858, 874 citing Tech-Bilt 38 Cal.3d 488. A determination of good faith shall bar any 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. CCP § 877.6(c).

Here, pursuant to the settlement agreement, Rovner Construction will dismiss its claims against Home Site in exchange for a waiver of costs. No party objects to or opposes the motion for a determination of good faith settlement and there is no basis for the Court to find the settlement was not made in good faith.[2]

Accordingly, Home Site’s motion for a determination of a good faith settlement is GRANTED. Any and all cross-complaints or claims arising out of this action against Home Site for equitable comparative contribution or partial or comparative indemnity based on comparative negligence or comparative fault are barred.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: _________________ ______________________________

Honorable Dalila C. Lyons

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

[1] On February 16, 2018, Rovner Construction filed an “Amendment to Complaint” to name Albert Jauregui d/b/a Exclusive Metal as Moe 1, Commercial Construction Canopy, Inc. as Moe 2, Art Deck, Inc. as Moe 3, Craftsman Iron Works, Inc. as Moe 4, Express Contractors, Inc. as Moe 5, Jim Reyes d/b/a Pacific Door Industries as Moe 6, Nova Contractors, Inc. as Moe 7, and E.N. Dell Company, Inc. d/b/a Republic Elevator Company as Moe 8. On February 26, 2018, Rovner Construction filed an “Amendment to Complaint” to correct the names of Shani Wallcovering & Paint to Haim Shani d/b/a Shani Wallcovering & Paint, Encore Painting to Arrow Inspection and Testing d/b/a Encore Painting, and Jorge Hernandez d/b/a JHF A/C & Heating to Jorge Hernandez d/b/a JHF Heating and A/C.

[2] While the settling party is not initially compelled to make a showing of the Tech-Bilt factors in bringing the motion for good faith settlement, once the settlement is attacked as lacking good faith the settling party is required to file counter-affidavits showing the settlement is “in the ballpark.” See Mattco Forge 38 Cal. App. 4th at 1350 n. 6. Here, there is no opposition or “attack” that the settlement lacks good faith.