Case Number: BC620715 Hearing Date: September 09, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

On May 17, 2016, Plaintiff Beatriz West (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Nader Hattar, Dema Hattar, Hattar Family Trust, the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, and the State of California alleging negligence and premises lability for a trip-and-fall that occurred on August 5, 2015.

On December 2, 2019, the Court dismissed Defendants State of California and County of Los Angeles without prejudice.

On June 5, 2018, the Court rendered judgment in favor of Defendants Nadar Hattar and Dema Hattar individually, and as trustees of the Hattar Family Trust against Plaintiff.

On June 27, 2018, Defendant/Cross-Defendant City of Los Angeles filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendant Northridge Estates Homeowner Association.

On July 10, 2019 Cross-Defendant Northridge Estates Homeowner Association filed a motion for a determination of a good faith settlement pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6.

Trial is set for October 29, 2019.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Cross-Defendant Northridge Estates Homeowner Association (“Moving Party”) requests that the Court issue an order finding the settlement between Moving Party and Plaintiff to have been reached 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

The Court finds Moving Party has filed a sufficient barebones declaration. This declaration indicates Plaintiff tripped and fell on property that Moving Party does not own. (Freeman Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) Moving Party has agreed to settle the action with Plaintiff for $25,000. (Freeman Decl., ¶ 11.) There is no collusion or fraud. (Freeman Dec., ¶ 12.) Moving Party believes it would be entitled to a defense verdict because Moving Party does not owe a duty to Plaintiff. (Freeman Decl., ¶ 13.)

While brief, the Court finds the declaration to be satisfactory for the Court to determine the settlement has been entered into in good faith. The key fact is that the property where the incident occurred was not owned by Moving Party. Defendant City of Los Angeles does not oppose this motion.

The motion is GRANTED.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.