Case Number: BC529500    Hearing Date: July 23, 2014    Dept: J

Re: Richard A. Mumford v. San Dimas Retirement Center, Inc., et al. (BC529500)

MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

Moving Party: Defendants San Dimas Retirement Center, Inc. and Longwood Management Corp.

Respondent: No timely opposition filed

POS: Moving OK

The Complaint alleges that the decedent was a resident at San Dimas Retirement Center, Inc., she received hospice care at the facility, by Ultimate Care Hospice, Inc. and Atul Aggarwal, M.D., and that Defendants abandoned and neglected the decedent. The Complaint, filed 12/4/13 asserts causes of action for:

1. Elder Neglect & Abuse
2. Willful Misconduct
3. Fraud-Concealment
4. Wrongful Death

The Trial Setting Conference is set for 10/1/14.

Defendants San Dimas Retirement Center, Inc. and Longwood Management Corporation (collectively “Defendants”) move pursuant to CCP § 877.6(a)(2) for an order determining that the settlement they entered into with Plaintiff Richard A. Mumford (“Plaintiff”) in this matter was made in good faith.

On December 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed his Complaint alleging causes of action for Elder Neglect & Abuse, Willful Reckless Misconduct, Fraud-Concealment and Statutory Wrongful Death, arising out of a fall that his mother, Dona Mumford, sustained at Defendants’ facility on December 17, 2012.

Defendants represent that Plaintiff and Defendants have agreed in good faith to resolve all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants by payment of a confidential settlement amount, set forth in a declaration filed under seal, in exchange for Plaintiff’s dismissal with prejudice of his claims against Defendants.

In making its determination that a settlement has been entered into in “good faith,” the Court must look to several factors: (1) a rough approximately of Plaintiffs’ total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) the allocation of settlement proceeds among Plaintiffs; (4) a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial; (5) the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants; and (6) the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of non-settling defendants. (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodard-Clyde & Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.) The Court’s evaluation is to be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement. (Id.)

No non-settling defendant has objected to the settlement. In this situation, it is enough for a settling defendant to make a “barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case . . .” (City of Grand Terrace v. Super. Ct. (Boyter) (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.)

Defendants’ motion meets this lower threshold. The motion recites that the settlement was entered into in good faith, and the accompanying declaration by Jack D. Ross and Plaintiff’s Complaint, provide the requisite “brief background of the case.”

The court accordingly determines that the settlement between Plaintiff and Defendants was made in good faith. Thus, the motion is granted.