2011-00115694-CU-PA

Christopher Sisto vs. James Timothy Banks

Nature of Proceeding: Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Filed By: Tate, David W.

Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Cross-Defendant Les Schwab Tire Centers of
California’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as
required by with C.R.C., Rule 3.1308 and Local Rule 1.06(D). Local Rules for the
Sacramento Superior Court are available on the Court’s website at
Counsel for moving party is
ordered to notify opposing party immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event opposing party
appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

In considering whether a settlement is entered in good faith, the court considers the
following factors: (1) a rough approximation of the plaintiffs’ total recovery and the
settling party’s proportionate liability; (2) the amount to be paid in the settlement; (3)
the proposed allocation of the settlement proceeds; (4) a recognition that the settling
parties should pay less in settlement than if they were found to be liable after trial; (5)
the financial condition of the settling parties, and the insurance policy limits, if any; and
(6) the existence of collusion, fraud or tortuous conduct aimed to injure the interests of
the non-settling defendants. ( Tech-Bilt v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d
488, 499.) The ultimate test is whether the settlement is grossly disproportionate to
what a reasonable person at the time of settlement would estimate the settlor’s liability
to be. (Id.) Settling defendants may properly pay less than their proportional share of
the anticipated damages. In order to encourage settlement, what is required is simply
that the settlement not be grossly disproportionate to the settlor’s fair share of liability.
This determination is made based on the information available at the time of the
settlement. ( Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 499.)

Here, the sparse moving papers submitted by the settling defendant Les Schwab lack
substantial information regarding a rough approximation of the plaintiffs’ total recovery
and the settling party’s proportionate liability. The amount to be paid in settlement for
this three car accident, resulting from the alleged negligent inspection of the defendant
Banks’ truck is $7,500.

In opposition, Banks merely asserts that plaintiff Liberty seeks the sum of $205,000 in
damages from all three defendants and as plaintiff Banks asserts that Les Schwab
was negligent in its examination of the vehicle, he asserts that Les Schwab bears
primary responsibility for the accident. Banks bears the burden of demonstrating that
the settlement is so far out of the ballpark in relation to the Tech-Bilt factors as to be
inconsistent with the objectives of the good faith settlement statute. (Code Civ. Proc.
§877.6(d); Tech-Bilt, supra, at 499-500.)

In reply, Les Schwab bolsters its evidence in support of its lack of liability for the
accident. The suspension check was performed by Les Schwab for plaintiff at no
charge and the receipt states “WE REC. THE VEHICLE BE TAKEN TO A
COLLISION REPAIR SHOP” as the vehicle had previously been in an accident. Les
Schwab asserts that the disconnected steering column, the alleged cause of the
accident, worked perfectly well as Banks drove the truck for miles from Les Schwab
before the accident occurred. Les Schwab asserts that its expert testimony shows that
it was not responsible for the accident, and may expect to obtain a defense verdict.

The Court recognizes that a settling party should pay less in settlement than if they
were found to be liable after trial.

In conclusory fashion, opposing party Banks raises the possibility of the existence of
collusion, fraud or tortuous conduct aimed to injure the interests of the non-settling
defendants. Banks’ counsel declares that a prior motion for summary judgment by Les
Schwab was denied based upon the expert testimony of Liberty’s expert, Alex Wong.
Although counsel for Banks has expected depositions of witnesses to clarify or dispute
Wong’s testimony to take place, they have been taken off calendar. Similarly plaintiff
Sisto noticed the deposition of Wong for April 11, 2014, immediately following which Wong was withdrawn as Liberty’s expert witness.

Further in reply, Les Schwab responds that although it has conducted extensive
discovery, plaintiff has conducted none and noticed no deposition. Banks has not
retained his own expert on the standard of care for vehicle repair, although Banks
asserts plaintiff has always known it was an issue in this litigation. Les Schwab
withdrew its expert when it considered the action settled. No collusion, fraud or
tortuous conduct aimed to injure the interests of non-settling parties has been shown.

Based on the court’s review of the evidence presented, the Court concludes that
settlement appears to be reasonable and in good faith considering the factors set forth
in Tech-Bilt Inc. v Woodward Clyde & Associates , supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 499; CCP
877.6.

Counsel shall submit a formal Order for the Court’s signature.