Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement
(Van Nuys Courthouse East: Dept. B) May 18, 2026 LASC - Tentative Rulings Main Content --> Online Services Tentative Rulings Text-to-Speech Play Reset DEPARTMENT B LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Attorneys who elect to submit on these published tentative rulings, without making an appearance at the hearing, may so notify the Court by communicating this to the Department's staff before the set hearing time. See, e.g., CRC Rule 324(b).
Sehorn v. Golden Link Investment, Case no. 23VECV02217 Hearing date May 18, 2026 Defendant Golden Link’s Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement Plaintiffs Sehorn and Nazarian (“plaintiffs”) sued defendant Golden Link Investment, LLC for injuries arising out of premises liability. ACE American Insurance Co. (“ACE”) filed a complaint-in-intervention. Defendant Golden Link entered into a settlement to pay Sehorn $55,000 and Nazarian $15,000. See Decl. Matsuda, para.
10.
Defendant Golden Link applies for determination of good faith settlement. ACE opposes. Per Code Civ. Proc. §877.6 the court may determine whether a settlement is in good faith. Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 502; Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1349. The standards by which “good faith’ is determined include: (1) rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery and settlor’s proportionate liability; (2) amount paid in settlement; (3) allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (4) a recognition that settlor should pay less in settlement than if found liable after trial; (5) financial condition and insurance limits of the settling defendant; and (6) any collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.
Code Civ. Proc. §877.6(d); Tech-Bilt, supra, at p. 499; Mattco Forge, supra, at 1350, fn.
6.
The party asserting lack of good faith bears the burden of proof. Code Civ. Proc. §877.6(d). Plaintiffs’ medical specials are $7,275 plus pain and suffering for Sehorn and loss of consortium as to Nazarian. See Decl. Matsuda, paras. 8-9. Per the proposed settlement, Sehorn would receive $55,000 and Nazarian $15,000. Id. at para.
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?”
10.
The proposed settlement was reached between plaintiffs and defendant following arms-length negotiations. Id. at paras. 11-13, 15. Defendant satisfies Tech-Bilt. ACE argues the proposed settlement precludes it from recovering worker’s compensation benefits paid to or on behalf of Sehorn. ACE argues defendant Golden Link has not shown the proposed settlement is roughly proportional to the parties’ liability and apportionment thereof under Tech-Bilt, as the proposed settlement does not take ACE?s damages into account. ACE asserts the moving papers “do not provide a meaningful analysis of: ACE?s Complaint-in-Intervention; the amount of workers’ compensation benefits already paid; any ongoing or future benefit exposure; Golden Link’s comparative liability, if any; or why the settlement allocates nothing to ACE despite ACE?s asserted reimbursement rights.” Opp., 5:10-14.
This ignores the fact that ACE has the burden to prove its own damages and show a lack of good faith in the proposed settlement. ACE offers no argument or fact establishing a purported value for its claims. ACE failed to produce a PMQ for deposition as to its damages and failed to respond to a prior settlement offer from defendant. See Reply Decl. Matsuda, paras. 3-9. It is ACE?s burden to provide facts or evidence showing its own damages and that the proposed settlement is not proportional to the value of this case. ACE failed to offer evidence in opposition to this application or in the course of discovery, despite 8 attempts by defendant to depose ACE?s PMQ on this topic. See Reply Decl. Matsuda, paras. 3-6. ACE cannot fail to offer evidence as to its own damages, then argue a proposed settlement is not proportional. ACE failed to meet its burden. GRANTED.
Case Number: 24VECV02166 Hearing Date: May 18, 2026 Dept: B Tentative Ruling Shamlou v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Case no. 24VECV02166 Hearing date May 18, 2026 Defendant MBUSA?s Motion to Exclude Plaintiff Shamlou from Testifying at Trial Plaintiff Shamlou sues defendant Mercedes-Benz USA for violations of the Song-Beverly Act. Defendant filed a motion to compel plaintiff’s deposition, denied without prejudice for lack of notice. Code Civ. Proc. §1005; 12/29/25 Min. Order. Defendant’s subsequent motion to compel the deposition and for sanctions was granted, plaintiff was ordered to appear at deposition on 3/27/26 and sanctions of $2,160 against plaintiff and counsel were ordered. 2/26/26 Min. Order.
Defendant now moves to exclude plaintiff from testifying at trial, or in the alternative for a further order compelling her deposition, as plaintiff failed to appear on the court-ordered deposition date of 3/27/26. See Decl. Achatz, para 3. Defendant seeks further sanctions for this motion and plaintiff’s nonappearance of 3/27/26. Id. at para.
13.
Plaintiff opposes. Where a plaintiff fails to comply with a court order compelling deposition, the court may impose issue, evidentiary, or terminating sanctions, in addition to monetary sanctions. See Code Civ. Proc. §2025.450(h). Defendant attempted to depose plaintiff multiple times prior to moving for an order compelling the deposition. See Decl. Achatz, paras. 5-6. The court