Monica Torres-Mendoza vs. Penske Truck Leasing Co.

ID: 16039062174

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §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

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 Court’s 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 Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Oshawn Desmond-Andrew Richardson’s (“Richardson”) motion for good faith settlement determination is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or in person.

This is a consolidated personal injury action involving two motor vehicle collisions. The first occurred on June 11, 2021 when Plaintiff Monica Torres-Mendoza (“Plaintiff”) alleges she was sideswiped by a vehicle being driven by Defendant Jorge Eduardo Calderon. The second occurred on September 26, 2021 when Plaintiff alleges Richardson backed into Plaintiff’s vehicle. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that she had stopped to allow Richardson to back out of his parking spot, but Richardson failed to check his surroundings and suddenly accelerated out of the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00324160-CU-PA-GDS: Monica Torres-Mendoza vs. Penske Truck Leasing Co. 07/28/2025 Hearing on Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement in Department 54

parking spot into Plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff alleges that the collision with Richardson aggravated her preexisting injuries sustained from the first collision.

Plaintiff has agreed to settle her claims against Richardson contingent upon a finding that the settlement was entered into in good faith. The terms of the settlement call for Richardson to pay Plaintiff $250,000 through his insurer in exchange for Plaintiff dismissing her complaint against Richardson. (Costanzo Decl., ¶ 5.) Richardson’s counsel declares that the settlement was reached after extensive arms’ length negotiations between the parties and was made in good faith. (Costanzo Decl., ¶¶ 7, 9.)

Richardson brings this motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6(a)(1), which states:

Any party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors, upon giving notice in the manner provided in subdivision (b) of Section 1005. Upon a showing of good cause, the court may shorten the time for giving the required notice to permit the determination of the issue to be made before the commencement of the trial of the action, or before the verdict or judgment if settlement is made after the trial has commenced.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6(a)(1).)

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 tortuous 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.)

The moving party’s evidentiary burden depends upon whether the motion is contested. If unopposed, a “barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00324160-CU-PA-GDS: Monica Torres-Mendoza vs. Penske Truck Leasing Co. 07/28/2025 Hearing on Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement in Department 54

declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case, is sufficient.” (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior. Court. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.) Only “when the good faith nature of a settlement is disputed, [is it] incumbent upon the trial court to consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors.” (Ibid.)

Here, because the motion is unopposed, Richardson’s moving papers are sufficient to establish the settlement was made in good faith. Accordingly, Richardson’s motion is GRANTED.

The Court will sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers.