Motion for Good Faith Settlement
34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 07/12/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other for Good Faith Settlement in Department 36
Tentative Ruling
Defendants Samuel Dana (Dana) and Denise McCarneys (McCarney) (collectively, Defendants) motion for good faith settlement is unopposed and is GRANTED.
This is a consolidated action for personal injuries arising from a car accident. Defendants filed this motion prior to the consolidation for a March 5, 2024 hearing date. No opposition was timely filed; however, the Court continued the matter pending the motion to consolidate. On March 8, 2024, this case was consolidated with the lead case Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana et al., case no. 34-2021-00311004- CU-PA- GDS. The matter was thereafter continued, and as a result of Judge Sueyoshis disqualification, the matter is now assigned to this department.
In this action, Plaintiff Lisa Garcia (Plaintiff) alleges that on September 27, 2020, Dana rear-ended Plaintiffs Toyota Highlander at high rate of speed. McCarney, Danas grandmother owned the vehicle Dana was driving. Plaintiff alleges that the front driver seat of her vehicle was defective, which contributed to her injuries, including traumatic brain injury, fractured ribs, and fractured vertebrae requiring spinal fusion surgery.
The parties participated in a mediation on November 7, 2023. Defendants have settled with Plaintiff in the amount of $300,000. (Declaration of Mona Bauer, ¶¶ 3, 5.)
In considering whether a settlement is entered in good faith, the court considers the following factors: (1) a rough approximation of the plaintiffs' total recovery and the settling party's proportionate liability; (2) the amount to be paid in the settlement; (3) the proposed allocation of the settlement proceeds; (4) a recognition that the settling parties should pay less in settlement than if they were found to be liable after trial; (5) the financial condition of the settling parties, and the insurance policy limits, if any; and (6) the existence of collusion, fraud or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of the non-settling defendants. (Tech-Bilt v.
Woodward-Clyde & Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.) The ultimate test is whether the settlement is grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person at the time of settlement would estimate the settlor's liability to be. (Ibid.) Settling defendants may properly pay less than their proportional share of the anticipated damages. In order to encourage settlement, what is required is simply that the settlement not be grossly disproportionate to the settlor's fair share of liability. This determination is made based on the information available at the time of the settlement. (Ibid.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
It is well established that the party opposing the good faith determination bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the subject settlement is so far out of the ballpark in relation to the Tech-Bilt factors as to be inconsistent with the objectives of the good faith settlement statute. (Code Civ. Proc. §877.6(d); Tech-Bilt v.
34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 07/12/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other for Good Faith Settlement in Department 36
Woodward-Clyde & Assoc., supra, 38 Cal.3d at 499-500; City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1261.) [the burden of proof on the issue of good faith shifts to the nonsettlor who asserts that the settlement was not made in good faith].)
When no party objects to the settlement, a 'bare bones' motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is sufficient. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court, supra, 192 Cal. App. 3d at 1261.)
Given the lack of opposition, the non-settling parties cannot satisfy their burden of producing evidence to demonstrate that the settlement is so far out of the ballpark in relation to the Tech-Bilt factors as to be inconsistent with the objectives of the good faith settlement statute. Having considered the evidence and the payment amount, the settlement appears to be reasonable and in good faith considering the factors set forth in Tech-Bilt Inc., supra, 38 Cal.3d 488. (See also Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6.)
Accordingly, Defendants motion for good faith settlement is GRANTED.
Having no objection thereto, the Court will sign the proposed order submitted.
NOTICE:
This tentative ruling shall become the Courts final ruling unless a party wishing to be heard so advises the clerk of this department no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day preceding the hearing, and further advises the clerk that such party has notified the other side of its request for hearing.
The parties may appear remotely through the use of Zoom. The parties may join the Zoom session by audio and/or video through the link/telephone number which can be obtained by contacting the clerk of the court at dept36@saccourt.ca.gov or (916) 874- 7661 no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the scheduled hearing. In the event that a hearing is requested, oral argument shall be limited to no more than 30 minutes per side.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2021-00311004-CU-PA-GDS: Delma Jefferson vs. Samuel Gene Dana 07/12/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other for Good Faith Settlement in Department 36
A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.
If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.