DANIEL NOE, ET AL. VS. ALFONSO SENCION, ET AL.

JUNE 15, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 8 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ On December 22, 2025 Sencion filed a Motion to Contest Palo Alto’s Application supported by the Declaration of Gayle M. Kono and refers to a number of case filings and applies the Tech-Bilt factors. Sencion asserts that Plaintiff claims $3,695,206 in economic damages and an unspecified amount of noneconomic damages (Sencion “anticipate[s]” plaintiff will claim between $2 and $4 million). Sencion further asserts (simplified) that Palo Alto is more responsible for the injury than it claims, estimating its liability at 50-65%. Sencion also argues that Palo Alto failed to provide sufficient evidence to apply the Tech-Bilt factors in its application.

On March 3, 2026 Palo Alto filed an opposition to Sencion’s motion supported by another declaration of Rachel T. Velilla, which provides additional evidence responsive to Sencion’s arguments. Palo Alto agrees that plaintiff will claim between $2 and $4 million in non-economic damages.

On March 16, 2026 Sencion filed a reply brief supported by another declaration of Gayle M. Kono.

Also on March 16, there was apparently a hearing of some kind. The Court has reviewed the minutes of that hearing and it appears that the hearing was focused on a different application for determination of good faith settlement (see Pedrosos Settlement, infra) in the case.

On May 14, 2026 Sencion filed a supplemental brief supported by a third declaration of Gayle M. Kono and a declaration of Jay Carey. Sencion asserts that on March 16, 2026 Judge Amarra Lee addressed this application for determination of good faith settlement and allowed Palo Alto an opportunity to submit additional evidence and that it failed to do so.

On June 2, 2026 Palo Alto filed an objection to Sencion’s May 14, 2026 submission supported by another declaration of Rachel T. Velilla

2. Pedrosos Settlement

On February 4, 2026 David Pedroso and Amanda Pedroso (collectively, the Pedrosos) filed their Amendment Motion for Good Faith Settlement. The Settlement at issue is with the City of San Carlos and David Noe for $500,000. The Pedrosos assert that Plaintiff claims $3,600,000 in economic damages and an unspecified amount of non-economic damages. The Pedrosos assert that a likely outcome at trial would apportion 10% responsibility to it, 35% to Palo Alto, 35% to Sencion and 20% to plaintiff Noe. It notes that it disputes any responsibility for the injury and that the proposed settlement amounts to 100% of available insurance policy limits.

On March 3, 2026 Sencion filed its opposition to the Pedroso’s motion supported by the Declaration of Gayle M. Kono and refers to a number of case filings and applies the Tech-Bilt factors. Sencion asserts that Plaintiff claims $3,695,206 in economic damages and an unspecified amount of non-economic damages (Sencion anticipates plaintiff will claim between $2 and $4 million). Sencion further asserts (simplified) that Palo Alto is 50-65% liable, it is 5-10% liable, the Pedrosos are 20-25% liable and Noe is 10-15% comparatively negligent. Sencion also argues that the Pedrosos failed to provide sufficient evidence to apply the Tech-Bilt factors in its application.

On March 9, 2026 the Pedrosos filed a reply.

As noted above, on March 16, 2026 there was a hearing on the motion and the hearing was continued to June 15, 2026 with an opportunity for supplemental briefing.

JUNE 15, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 9 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ On April 30, 2026 the Pedrosos submitted a supplemental brief supported by the supplemental declaration of Lawrence E. Hart and the declaration of Richard Norman. The Pedrosos assert and cite evidence that supports existing disputes of fact despite extensive litigation and discovery as to “(1) [t]he nature of the hole as originally created by Sencion; (2) [w]hether the plywood cover created by Sencion was adequate; [and] (3) [w]hether Sencion re-secured the cover after other contractors performed work.”

On May 14, 2026 Sencion filed a supplemental brief supported by another declaration of Gayle M. Kono and a declaration of Jay Carey. In the Declaration of Mr. Carey, he asserts (somewhat inconsistent with Sencion’s own evaluation and) without any explanation that he assesses liability between the parties as 60% to Palo Alto, 15% to the Pedrosos, 10% to Sencion and 15% to plaintiff Noe.

On May 26, 2026 the Pedrosos filed a reply brief.

B. Legal Standards for Good Faith Settlement Determination

The court determines whether a settlement was made in good faith pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 877.6. A determination that the settlement was made in good faith bars “any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (c). “The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.” Id., subd. (d).

The Legislature’s intent and policies underlying Section 877.6 include encouraging settlement and “the equitable allocation of costs among multiple tortfeasors” and requires that

a number of factors be taken into account including a rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial. Other relevant considerations include the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants, as well as the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants. Tech- Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 498-99 (Tech-Bilt).

While “[t]he Tech-Bilt factors are nonexhaustive and may not apply in all cases” (Dole Food Co., Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 894, 909 (Dole)), the “ultimate determinant of good faith 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.” City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Ct. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1262 (citation omitted). “The determination as to whether a settlement is in good faith is a matter left to the discretion of the trial court.”

Dole, 242 Cal.App.4th at 909 (citations omitted). “When evaluating whether the parties reached a settlement in good faith, a trial court must examine not only the settling tortfeasor’s potential liability to the plaintiff, but also the settling tortfeasor’s potential liability to all nonsettling tortfeasors.” PacifiCare of California v. Bright Med. Assocs., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal. App. 4th 1451, 1465.

While practical considerations “require that the evaluation be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement,” the party asserting the lack of good faith “should be permitted to demonstrate,” if possible:

JUNE 15, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 10 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ that the settlement is so far “out of the ballpark” in relation to these factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute. Such a demonstration would establish that the proposed settlement was not a “settlement made in good faith” within the terms of section 877.6. Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal.3d at 499-500.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal has held that:

it would be appropriate for the objecting non-settlor to move for a continuance of the hearing, if necessary, for the purpose of gathering facts, which could include further formal discovery, to support its statutory burden of proof as to all Tech-Bilt factors non-settlors placed in issue in order that the matter can be fully and fairly litigated. . . . This rule shall apply to all contested good faith settlement hearings, no matter which of the Tech-Bilt factors are in issue. City of Grand Terrace, 192 Cal.App.3d at 1265.

The Court has exercised its discretion and considered the Tech-Bilt Factors and determines that both the Palo Alto and the Pedrosos settlements are reasonable and were made in good faith.

As far as the rough approximation of the Plaintiff’s possible recovery, everyone agrees that Plaintiff is claiming approximately 3.6 million dollars in economic damages (there is some ambiguity in the pleadings that might suggest that the amount might be hirer; even if so, it is unlikely to effect this analysis). No party has briefed how likely Plaintiff is to obtain those damages so the Court will assume that he may recover some or all of those damages. Sencion and Palo Alto also appear to agree that Plaintiff will claim 2 to 4 million dollar in non-economic damages but no party briefs how likely he is to obtain those amounts or any of the evidence that would support it.

To the extent that this tentative is contested, the parties should, in any event, be prepared to argue the significance of Plaintiff’s noneconomic damages to the Court’s determination if the parties are not joint and severally liable for them. But for the purposes of this determination the Court will assume that a rough approximation of Plaintiff’s possible recovery is 5.6 million dollars. Based on that assumption, the Pedrosos settlement is approximately 9% of that amount and the Palo Alto settlement approximately 32%.

As far as proportionate liabilities of the various defendants (and the plaintiff) those are in significant dispute. What appears to be undisputed (based on the evidence submitted) is that Sencion was the general contractor and dug a hole and put plywood over it. Supplemental Declaration of Lawrence E. Hart ¶ 7 (and supporting evidence). It appears to be undisputed that Plaintiff claims to have stepped on the plywood and hurt himself. But as the Supplemental Declaration of Lawrence E. Hart provides:

Maurice Weisbarth is an employee of Palo Alto Plumbing. Mr. Weisbarth was working at the 201 Arundel St., San Carlos property on March 17, 2021, the date of plaintiff’s fall. Mr. Weisbarth has testified that: When he arrived at the jobsite, he observed an existing hole close to the house. The hole was 24 inches wide. The hole was uncovered and was not marked with a cone or a barricade. Palo Alto Plumbing did not make the hole wider, deeper or fill it in. Palo Alto Plumbing did not touch the subject hole.

Palo Alto did not need the hole to accomplish their work on March 17, 2021. Palo Alto Plumbing did not create a pile of dirt near the hole. Palo Alto Plumbing was working 40 feet away from the hole. Palo Alto Plumbing staff did not attempt to cover the subject hole, believing it was not on their construction site. Palo Alto Plumbing staff were not present when plaintiff fell. After learning of the plaintiff’s fall, he looked at the hole. There was no plywood covering the hole. There were no cones marking the hole and there were no barricades marking the hole.

Id. ¶ 14 (and supporting evidence).

JUNE 15, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 11 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ While Sencion disputes and offers evidence refuting these facts, if a jury credits this evidence (and additional evidence submitted) the proportionate liability of Palo Alto and the Pedrosos would likely be substantially lower than 32% and 9%, respectively and they might not be held liable at all. And the Court is particularly cognizant of the Supreme Court’s reminder that “damages are often speculative, and the probability of legal liability therefor is often uncertain or remote [and] a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial.

Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal.3d at 499. It is notable that Sencion itself attributes as little as 50% responsibility to Palo Alto and its retained witness Mr. Carey as little as 10% to the Pedrosos.

In sum, the Court has considered all of the facts submitted as to these two settlements and considered those facts in light of all of the Tech-Bilt factors, recognizing that those facts are non-exhaustive, and determines in its discretion that both settlements are reasonable, in good faith and well within the ballpark of appropriate settlements.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept.11@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Counsel for the prevailing parties shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the California Rules of Court. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be efiled only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.

JUNE 15, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 12 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________

02:00 PM 23-CIV-00680 DANIEL NOE, ET AL. VS. ALFONSO SENCION, ET AL. LINE 3

DANIEL NOE JEFFREY R. SMITH ALFONSO SENCION TODD A. JONES

DEFENDANT, CROSS COMPLAINANT, CROSS DEFENDANT: DAVID PEDROSO AND AMANDA PEDROSO’S AMENDED MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT (C.C.P. 877.6; CAL. RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.1203)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Please refer to the tentative ruling for Line 2, which is hereby incorporated by reference and serves as the tentative ruling for Line 3.