Tentative Ruling

Judge James F. Rigali
Department 2 SM-Cook
312-C East Cook Street P.O. Box 5369 Santa Maria, CA 93456-5369

CIVIL LAW & MOTION
Harris v. Vega
Case No: 19CV02821
Hearing Date: Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:30

Nature of Proceedings: Motion: Contesting Good Faith Settlement

According to the complaint, on March 18, 2018, a vehicle operated by defendant Maria Gonzales in the course and scope of her employment with defendant Jordana Marketing, Inc. collided with a vehicle driven by plaintiff Rinko Harris. The complaint alleges that a vehicle driven by Nohemi Duran Vega was leaking vehicle fluid and created a dangerous, slippery condition near the accident, causing the collision.

Plaintiff filed a complaint for negligence on May 23, 2019 against Nohemi Duran Vega, Jordana Marketing, and Maria Gonzalez. Defendants Jordana Marketing, Inc. and Maria Gonzales filed a cross-complaint on August 14, 2019, against Nohemi Duran Vega.

On August 23, 2019, plaintiff dismissed Nohemi Duran Vega from her complaint. Nohemi Duran Vega subsequently filed an application for determination of good faith settlement reporting that the parties settled for $15,000, which represents the sum total of Nohemi Duran Vega’s policy of automotive insurance applicable to this matter. Ms. Vega contends her settlement is reasonable and “within the ballpark” as defined in Tech-Bilt v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488.

The amount paid by the settling defendant reduces the claim against the others. (Code Civ. Proc. § 877, subd. (a)). But there is still a risk of prejudice to them because an unreasonably low settlement (e.g., with the most culpable tortfeasor) would expose the remaining defendants to a judgment exceeding their fair share of the liability. To avoid this risk, the court is empowered under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 to determine the “good faith” of such “piecemeal” settlements. (See Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assocs. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 494-497; Bay Develop., Ltd. v. Sup.Ct. (Home Capital Corp.) (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1012, 1019-1020.)

On December 18, 2019, defendants Jordana Marketing Inc. and Maria Gonzalez filed a Motion Contesting Good Faith Settlement in response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6, subd. (a)(1) & (2).) Defendants concede that settlement for policy limits typically militates in favor of a determination of good faith settlement, but argue that no such determination can be made without information regarding VEGA’s financial condition. Opposition was filed on December 20, 2019. No reply was filed.

In response, Nohemi Duran Vega filed opposition that states: “The settlement represents all funds available to NOHEMI DURAN VEGA under her insurance policy with Alliance United Insurance; policy number MIL3551732, with limits of $15,000/$30,000/$10,000.” (Decl. of Buttry, ¶ 3.) Attached to the declaration is a declarations page that confirms this information.

“The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6, subd. (d).) The party seeking a determination of good faith may file a “bare bones” motion, stating the grounds on which the determination is sought and supporting the motion with a declaration setting forth a brief background of the case and the settlement terms. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.) The moving party need not address all the factors relevant to the determination of good faith. (Id. at p. 1258.) The party challenging the good faith of the settlement bears the burden of presenting evidence demonstrating that the settlement is not in good faith. (Id. at pp. 1261–1262.) The moving party may then file responsive declarations or other evidence negating the asserted lack of good faith. (Id. at p. 1262.)

Nohemi Duran Vega has yet to make the requisite showing. Tech–Bilt held that even when the claimant’s damages are obviously great, and the liability certain, a disproportionately low settlement figure is often reasonable in the case of a relatively insolvent, and uninsured, or underinsured joint tortfeasor. (Tech–Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward–Clyde & Associates, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 499; see also Schmid v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1244, 1245—settlement of a personal injury action is in good faith where the defendant pays the plaintiff the insurance policy limit and has no other assets.)

In County of Los Angeles v. Guerrero (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1149, the court found that payment of insurance policy limits was in good faith where the settling party showed even “modest financial condition.” In that case, the defendant filed a declaration showing that he was married with three children, employed as an assembly line worker earning $550 gross per week, that his only assets were $11,000 equity in his home, two ten-year old vehicles and $100 in his checking account. (Id. at 1153; see also Schmid, supra, 205 Cal.App.3d at 1246—undisputed evidence submitted on the motion showed settling party had no other assets.)

Here, Nohemi Duran Vega has filed no such declaration. The court thus cannot assess whether she is relatively insolvent.

The court cannot find the settlement was in good faith based on this record. The application for a determination the settlement was in good faith is accordingly denied without prejudice to renewal of the application with evidence of insolvency