Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Cal. Super. - 2nd Dist.January 9, 2019

123 Judge SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, TENTATIVE RULINGS EVENT DATE: EVENT TIME: VENTURA DIVISION June 24, 2021 06/30/2021 08:20:00 AM DEPT.: 40 COUNTY OF VENTURA JUDICIAL OFFICER: Mark Borrell CASE NUM: CASE CATEGORY: EVENT TYPE: CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:Civil - Unlimited PI/PD/WD - Auto 56-2019-00523147-CU-PA-VTA GONZALEZ VS. COUNTY OF VENTURA Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement, 05/03/2021 stolo The following is a statement of the court's tentative ruling. The court may adopt, modify or reject the tentative ruling after considering the parties' oral arguments. The tentative ruling will have no legal effect unless adopted by the court. No notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to submit on the tentative decision, you may send a telefax to Judge Borrell's secretary, Isabel Alarcon, at 805-477-5894, stating that you submit on the tentative. A copy of the telefax must be sent to all opposing parties contemporaneous with transmission to the court. Please include the hearing date, the case name and case number on your telefax. Do not call in lieu of sending a telefax, nor should you call to see if your telefax has been received. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. Before the court are two motions, each essentially raising the same issue but asking the court to resolve that issue differently. Defendants Marcos Cazares and Maria L. Cazares move for an order determining their proposed settlement with plaintiff has been reached in good faith. Conversely, Defendant City of Oxnard ("City") asks the court to determine the settlement has not been reached in good faith. Evidentiary Rulings Cazares's request for judicial notice is GRANTED. City's request for judicial notice is GRANTED IN PART as to (a) Plaintiff's claim; (c) Plaintiff's complaint; (d)-(f) subdivision agreements; (g)-(h) recorded documents; (m) resurfacing plan; and (n) Road Book, and DENIED IN PART as to the other documents. Discussion The City's arguments concerning the plaintiff's capacity are misplaced. The City is right to suggest that the individual plaintiff maybe without capacity to contract. This contention finds support in the court's earlier determination that plaintiff required a guardian ad litem. It is for this reason, that to consummate the settlement, plaintiff's guardian will have to separately move for court approval. The issue at that time will be whether the settlement is in the best interest of the incapacitated person. That is a different issue than whether the settlement was negotiated in good faith. And, for this reason, a determination that the settlement is reached in good faith does not obviate the need for court approval of the settlement. And vice-a-versa. Although the papers before the court do not raise this issue, the court invites discussion at the hearing as to the order in which these things - a motion for determination of good faith and an application for approval of a minor's compromise - must occur. One Court of Appeal had these comments in that regard: "At no time has this court approved any minor's compromise in this matter. Such approval is a prerequisite to a valid settlement. Since there never was a valid approval of minor's compromise no legally valid settlement exists. A fortiori, no determination of a good faith settlement (Code Civ.Proc., § 877.6) may be entered." (Anderson v. Latimer (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 667, 676.) If this is shown to be an accurate statement of the applicable law, then the settling defendants have not proved the existence of a "valid settlement" and the motion for determination of a good faith settlement must be denied or postponed. TENTATIVE RULINGS Page: 1 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: GONZALEZ VS. COUNTY OF VENTURA 56-2019-00523147-CU-PA-VTA The parties should be prepared discuss at the hearing. TENTATIVE RULINGS Page: 2