Doe v. Goodwill of Orange County

The Court hereby sets an order to show cause on September 8, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department N14, why monetary sanctions should not be imposed on counsel for Plaintiff, The Vartazarian Law Firm, Steve Vartazarian, Matthew J. Whibley, and Margaret Gabuchian, and counsel for the Reeves Defendants, Tyler & Mendes, LLP, and David M. Frishman, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5.

106 Cruz v Carillo, 2024- MOTION FOR PARTITION OF PROPERTY 01394635 Plaintiff Freddy Jonathan Cruz moves for an interlocutory judgment of partition by sale pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 872.010 et seq. Plaintiff also requests that a referee be appointed to conduct the sale, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 873.010 et seq.

In light of the mandatory settlement conference scheduled for Friday, August 28, 2026, the Court will not post a tentative ruling in this case. If the matter does not settle, the Court will provide a tentative ruling to the parties before the hearing on August 31, 2026.

107 Doe v. Goodwill of MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH Orange County, 2023- SETTLEMENT – GRANTED 01341615 Defendant Sodexo Management, Inc. (Sodexo) moves for an order determining that the settlement between Plaintiff Jane Doe (Plaintiff) and Sodexo was made in good faith pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6. Defendant Goodwill of Orange County (Goodwill) opposes the motion.

The determination of a good faith settlement under section 877.6 require this Court to consider factors 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,

• A recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial, • The financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants, and • The existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants, and • The settling defendant’s potential liability for indemnity to a non-settling defendant.

(Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.)

The party opposing the motion for good faith settlement bears the burden of proof. (§ 877.6(d).) “The party asserting the lack of good faith . . . should be permitted to demonstrate, if he can, 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 demonstration would establish that the proposed settlement was not a ‘settlement made in good faith’ within the terms of section 877.6.” (Tech Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 499-500.)

Amount Paid in Settlement Plaintiff and Sodexo have reached a settlement, and provided the amount of that settlement to this Court. (Rodolff Decl., ¶¶ 3-4; Rodolff reply decl., Ex. A.)

Rough Approximation of Plaintiff’s Total Recovery and Settlor’s Proportionate Liability The most important factor is the settling party’s proportionate liability. (Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1350.) 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 Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1262.) Sodexo has provided information indicating that the mean recovery via settlement or verdict for a plaintiff alleging similar claims in Orange County is lower than

the amount Sodexo has agreed to settle for. (Rodolff Decl., ¶ 5.) The Court has also received copies of discovery responses explaining the nature and extent of the damages suffered by Plaintiff. (Supp. Rodolff Decl., ¶¶ 4-16, Exs. A-D.)

Goodwill does not dispute the evidence as to mean recovery for a plaintiff in a sexual assault case in Orange County, and does not show that Plaintiff’s recovery in this case should be higher. Goodwill’s assertion that its counsel received an opening settlement demand from Plaintiff’s counsel that was significantly higher for a global settlement of this matter provides no real basis for approximating Plaintiff’s damages. (Hopson Decl., ¶ 9.) “[A] plaintiff’s claims for damages are not determinative in finding good faith; rather, the court is called upon ‘to make a “rough approximation” of what the plaintiff would actually recover’ [citation], with the evaluation to be made ‘on the basis of information available at the time of settlement.’ [Citation.]” (Dole Food Co. Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 894, 904.)

The Court finds that the settlement amount reflects Sodexo’s proportionate liability, based on facts currently known, the fact that only a single cause of action was asserted against Sodexo, the limitations on Sodexo’s liability because it was the employer of neither Plaintiff nor Defendant Banuelos was employed by Sodexo, the investigation of a prior sexual harassment claim which Sodexo concluded was an isolated incident between two people who had a long-term friendship, and Sodexo’s lack of notice or knowledge of the assault alleged by Plaintiff.. (Rodolff Decl., ¶ 7; Miller decl., ¶¶ 4-5.)

The Court finds that the settlement is within the “ballpark.”

Sodexo to give notice.