SUSAN CARROLL VS. ROBERT JOSEPH STEGER, ET AL

August 19, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ 2:00 PM LINE 2 24-CIV-04923 SUSAN CARROLL VS. ROBERT JOSEPH STEGER, ET AL

SUSAN CARROLL QUINTON B. CUTLIP ROBERT JOSEPH STEGER STEFANIE DESALERNOS

DEFENDANT ROBERT STEGER’S MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT CCP 877.6

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Motion for Good Faith Settlement, filed by defendant Robert Steger, is DENIED without prejudice.

Steger has not sufficiently set out facts that meet the standard for approval of a good faith settlement determination pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, sections 877 and 877.6, and per the factors set out in Tech-Bilt Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499 (Tech-Bilt). The factors set out in Tech-Bilt require the court to consider:

1. A rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability, 2. the amount paid in settlement, 3. the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, and 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 nonsettling defendants. (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 499.)

Steger has only addressed the question of the amount of available insurance coverage, explaining that the settlement is $10 less than his policy limits. While that is a factor to be considered, it is not the sole factor. In particular, Steger has not supplied a “rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability.”

Hoseley Corporation and the State of California oppose the motion, arguing that Steger has failed to supply sufficient evidence to permit the court to review the settlement.

The court requires additional information before it can make a good faith determination. In any future motion for good faith settlement determination, Steger should provide information and evidence regarding the application of the Tech-Bilt factors to the settlement.

August 19, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, Hoseley Corporation’s counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, providing written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), which states in part that the “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.