Case Number: EC059990 Hearing Date: May 02, 2014 Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING (5-2-14)
#4 (Part 1 of 2)
EC 059990
ARABYAN v. ASATURYAN

Defendants Rafik Asaturyan, Ruben Kesayan, Castlebow Association and the Management Emporium’s Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

NOTE:
This matter was previously heard on March 21, 2014. The court published its detailed tentative then. The matter was continued to this date, as “Proof of Service of the application has not been completed.”

The proof of service now appears to be in order, and the application is approved pursuant to the previous tentative.

APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT
[CCP §430.10 et. seq.]

TENTATIVE RULING (5-2-14) – previously posted
#4 (Part 2 of 2)
EC 059990
ARABYAN v. ASATURYAN

Defendants Rafik Asaturyan, Ruben Kesayan, Castlebow Association and the Management Emporium’s Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

TENTATIVE:
Unopposed Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED. The court determines that the settlement entered by plaintiff and defendants Rafik Asaturyan, Ruben Kesayan, Castlebow Association and the Management Emporium was entered into in good faith; Defendants Rafik Asaturyan, Ruben Kesayan, Castlebow Association and the Management Emporium are hereby discharged from all liability on claims for equitable contribution and/or full or partial indemnity by other parties, joint tortfeasors, or co-obligors, in this or any other action arising from the same general set of facts.

ANALYSIS:
Under CCP section 877.6, a court may approve a settlement by determining it was made in good faith, and such a determination shall bar any other joint tortfeasor from further claims against the settling torfeasor. CCP section 877.6(d) provides that “the party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.”

Under Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, the factors set forth above should be considered in determining the good faith of a settlement. Moreover, the court should consider the policy in favor of encouraging settlement, and that a party should pay less in settlement than its actual exposure should the matter be tried to conclusion. Stambaugh v. Superior Court (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 231, 235.

In this case, the moving party has not set forth a clear indication of defendants’ financial condition.

However, the moving defendants makes a strong argument that they bear little responsibility for plaintiff’s damages, but are paying 2/3 of her demand.

Again, it is the challenging party’s burden to show a lack of good faith, and in this case there is no opposition to this motion.

In Tech Bilt, the Supreme Court stated:
“ 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, 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, at 498 (quotation, citations omitted, emphasis added).

Here, the declaration sets forth the background, and establishes that the settlement is for a significant sum, well within the ballpark of defendants’ potential liability in comparison to other defendants. The settlement appears to have been reached during back and forth arms’ length negotiations, and there is direct testimony that no collusion was involved. The application is therefore granted.