JOHN NDJ DOE, et al. vs CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

23CV012006: JOHN NDJ DOE, et al. vs CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

23CV012006: JOHN NDJ DOE, et al. vs CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement in Department 8C

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

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

Defendant Point Loma Nazarene University’s (“PLNU”) motion for good faith settlement determination is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.

PLNU is admonished for failing to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(f)(4), which provides, “Unless they are submitted by a self-represented party, electronic exhibits must

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012006: JOHN NDJ DOE, et al. vs CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement in Department 8C

include electronic bookmarks with links to the first page of each exhibit and with bookmark titles that identify the exhibit number or letter and briefly describe the exhibit.” Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers not being considered, matters being continued so that papers may be submitted in the proper format, and/or the imposition of sanctions.

This is a consolidated action involving several pseudonymous plaintiffs bringing claims arising from alleged childhood sexual assault committed by Defendant Bradley Earl Reger (“Reger”). The lead case, John NDJ Doe, et al. v. Church of the Nazarene, et al., Case No. 23CV012006 (the “NDJ Action”), was filed on November 20, 2023. On February 7, 2025, the NDJ Action was consolidated with John NTZ Doe, et al. v. Church of the Nazarene Foundation, et al., Case No. 24CV016361 (the “NTZ Action”). On May 29, 2026, the NDJ Action and the NTZ Action were consolidated with John NRS Doe v. Mountain Lifelight, Inc., et al., Case No. 25CV026765 (the “NRS Action”). PLNU is named as a defendant in the NDJ Action only and is not a party to the NTZ Action or the NRS Action. The named defendants in the NRS Action are also named defendants in the NDJ Action and/or NTZ Action.

The present motion relates to a settlement between PLNU and Plaintiff John NWZ Doe (“NWZ”). NWZ is a plaintiff in the NDJ Action and is not a party to the NTZ Action or the NRS Action.

The claims alleged against PLNU are for negligence, negligent supervision, negligent hiring/retention, negligent failure to warn/train/educate, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty, and constructive fraud. The basis for liability against PLNU is its alleged supervisory authority over Reger through hiring or retention of Reger to serve in various positions of authority at PLNU that provided him with access to minors, thereby enabling and allowing the alleged sexual abuse.

PLNU denies any affiliation with Reger and denies the alleged basis for liability. With its motion, PLNU submits evidence that NWZ was never a student at PLNU, but visited the campus two or three times between 2006 through 2009 for soccer tournaments. PLNU contends that NWZ’s discovery responses show a lack of any connection between PLNU, Reger, and NWZ, and thus that NWZ will not be able to establish the duty element against PLNU.

On January 15, 2026, following arm’s length negotiations between the parties, NWZ and PLNU reached the subject settlement agreement, which is contingent upon this motion being granted. The settlement calls for NWZ to dismiss his claims against PLNU with prejudice and release all claims against PLNU, and for all other plaintiffs in the NDJ Action to dismiss their claims against PLNU, in exchange for payment by PLNU to NWZ for $33,000.00. (See Odegaard Decl.,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012006: JOHN NDJ DOE, et al. vs CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement in Department 8C

Exh. A.)

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012006: JOHN NDJ DOE, et al. vs CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement in Department 8C

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