Case Number: BC596144??? Hearing Date: April 25, 2016??? Dept: 98
MARK BOND,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JILIENNE HART, et al.,
Defendants.
And Related Cross-Action.
CASE NO: BC596144
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENTDept. 98
1:30 p.m.
April 25, 2016
On September 29, 2015, Plaintiff Mark Bond (?Plaintiff?) filed this action against Defendants Jilienne Hart-Arth (erroneously sued as Jilienne Hart); Bell Cab Company, Inc.; and Rubik Alaverdyan for alleged damages arising out of an October 3, 2013 vehicle collision. Defendant Jilienne Hart-Arth (?Defendant?) now moves for determination of good faith settlement.
The subject settlement is between Plaintiff and Defendant and provides that Defendant will pay Plaintiff $100,000.00, the total amount of her applicable insurance proceeds, in exchange for a fully executed release of all claims. Plaintiff claims medical specials in the amount of $69,853.90.
In order to determine the good faith of a proposed settlement, the trial court must inquire, among other things, whether the amount of the settlement is within the reasonable range of the settling tortfeasor?s proportional share of comparative liability for the plaintiff?s injuries. Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499. This is not to say that bad faith can be established by showing that a settling defendant paid less than his theoretical proportionate or fair share. Id. ?[D]amages are often speculative, and the probability of legal liability therefor is often uncertain or remote.? Id. ?Moreover, such a rule would tend to convert the pretrial settlement approval procedure into a full scale mini trial.? Id. This does not mean that the amount of the settlement is irrelevant in determining good faith. Rather, the intent and policies underlying section 877.6 require that a number of factors be taken into account, including:
(1) A rough approximation of plaintiff?s 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 the nonsettling defendants.
Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.
The Court finds that the settlement between Plaintiff and Defendant has been made in good faith. Defendant timely and properly served the moving papers on all parties to the action and all parties affected by the settlement. Any opposition to the motion was due on or before April 12, 2016. As of April 20, 2016, no opposition has been filed. The burden on a motion for determination of good faith settlement rests squarely on the party opposing the finding of good faith. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. ? 877.6(d). In light of the lack of opposition, no party has met that burden. The motion for determination of good faith settlement is therefore GRANTED.
Dated this 25th day of April, 2016
Hon. Holly J. Fujie
Judge of the Superior Court