N.I. VS BUKARAU

often supports good faith. However, the inquiry also includes the settling defendant’s personal financial condition. Here, the record does not contain any evidence regarding Burleson’s net worth, assets, income, occupation, or overall ability to pay a judgment beyond the $30,000 insurance policy. In City of Grand Terrace, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, the court of appeal overturned a good faith determination because no evidence was submitted showing the defendant’s financial condition, even with potential insurance coverage. There, there was “evidence that settlor was an airline captain and nothing more.” (City of Grand Terrace, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d 1264.) The settlor’s financial ability is a factor for the trial court to properly evaluate the reasonable range of the settlement. (Id.) This mirrors the deficiency here. There appears to be no evidence of the settlor’s financial status. This information is needed to determine if a policy-limit settlement is reasonable compared to Burleson’s personal ability to respond to the damages.

As to the sixth factor, although Cross-Complainants question the misleading negotiation process, the evidence does not show collusion or fraud.

An objecting non-settlor may move for a continuance to allow “for the purpose of gathering facts” so that “the matter can be fully and fairly litigated.” (City of Grant Terrace, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1265.) Here, the court will grant a continuance for 120 days for discovery as there is limited information about the settlor’s financial conditions from either side.

2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE CVRI2502882 N.I. VS BUKARAU ORDER Tentative Ruling: Grant. No opposition.

3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME SERRANO VS ROYAL PLAZA TEXTILES, INC., A MOTION TO COMPEL CVRI2504134 NEW YORK ARBITRATION CORPORATION Tentative Ruling: Grant. No opposition.