1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARISSA ARAUJO (SURVIVAL Case No.: 20-cv-01800-AJB-MDD ACTION), et al., 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR Plaintiffs, 13 DETERMINATION OF GOOD v. FAITH SETTLEMENT 14 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER 15 DISTRICT; THE COUNTY OF (Doc. No. 147) 16 IMPERIAL; JOSUE GONZALEZ; and DOES 1 TO 25, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER 19 DISTRICT, 20 Cross-Complainant, 21 v. 22 ANDRE DOS-SANTOS DE-SA, an 23 individual; COUNTY OF IMPERIAL, a Public Entity; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 24
25 Cross-Defendants. 26 27 Before the Court is Cross-Defendant Andre Dos-Santos De-Sa’s (“De-Sa”) motion 28 for determination of good faith settlement with Jose Carlos de Araujo, Helenilza Maria 1 Oliveira de Araujo, Alves Dos Santos, and Maria Tereza de Carvalho (the “Wrongful Death 2 Plaintiffs”). (Doc. No. 147.) To date, the Court has received no opposition to this motion 3 by the other parties to this case (“Nonsettling Parties”). Defendant and Cross-Complainant 4 Coachella Valley Water District has filed a Statement of Agreement and Non-Opposition 5 to the instant motion. (Doc. No. 152.) For the reasons set forth in detail below, the Court 6 GRANTS the De-Sa’s motion. 7 I. BACKGROUND 8 This action arises out of a tragic accident that occurred in unincorporated Imperial 9 County. On October 2, 2019, Cross-Defendant Andre Dos Santos De-Sa was driving a 10 Hyundai Elantra when he, along with Plaintiffs Larissa Araujo and Andressa Dos Santos 11 and non-party Cheng Zhang, were involved in a two-car, broadside collision with a van 12 driven by Defendant Josue Gonzalez, an employee of Defendant CVWD. (Doc. No. 109-1 13 at 9.) The automobile accident resulted in the deaths of Larissa Araujo and Andressa Dos 14 Santos. (Id. at 10.) 15 At the time of the collision, Defendant Gonzalez was driving a Ford E350 Super 16 Duty van southbound on English Road, while Plaintiffs, De-Sa, and Zheng were heading 17 westbound on Schrimpf Road. (Id. at 9.) Where these two roads intersect, both English 18 Road and Schrimpf Road are unpaved, graded dirt roads. (Id. at 8.) There were no stop 19 signs or other traffic controls to indicate an intersection was approaching. (Id. at 10.) Thus, 20 English Road and Schrimpf Road were two perpendicular roads that intersected without 21 any controls regulating cross-traffic. (Id.) At the time of the collision, there were no posted 22 speed limit signs at this intersection. (Id.) Thus, pursuant to California Vehicle Code 23 § 22349(b), the speed limit was 55 mph. (Id. at 11.) 24 Approximately 73 feet northeast of the intersection, there is a dirt berm 25 approximately five feet high. (Doc. No. 115 at 6.) While Mr. De-Sa was driving west on 26 Schrimpf, the dirt berm was to his right/north, while the berm was to Defendant Gonzalez’s 27 left/east as he drove south. (Doc. No. 109-1 at 11.) In 2014, this berm was designed and 28 constructed by Imperial Irrigation District (“IID”) as part of its Managed Marsh Complex, 1 Phase 2. (Doc. No. 115 at 6.) 2 In the 5 seconds before the collision, Mr. De-Sa’s Hyundai was traveling at 56 mph. 3 (Id.) From 4 to 2 seconds before the collision, the Hyundai slowed from 55 mph to 47 mph. 4 (Id.) Then, in the 1.5 seconds to 1 second before the collision, the Hyundai was traveling 5 46 mph. (Id.) Meanwhile, Defendant Gonzalez’s Ford maintained a constant speed between 6 59.0 and 60.9 mph and never slowed or activated its brakes before the collision. (Id.) Mr. 7 De-Sa’s Hyundai entered the intersection first and was thereafter hit by Defendant 8 Gonzalez’s Ford. (Id.) 9 On September 13, 2020, the Wrongful Death Plaintiffs filed the instant action 10 alleging causes of action for the wrongful deaths of decedents Larissa Araujo and Andressa 11 Dos Santos, battery, violation of civil rights, and negligence. Defendant CVWD thereafter 12 filed a cross-claim against De-Sa and the County of Imperial (the “County”) for negligence, 13 indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief. The cross-claim was later amended to add 14 IID. 15 On September 10, 2020, Mr. Zhang and De-Sa, as plaintiffs, commenced an action 16 in the Imperial County Superior Court against CVWD and Mr. Gonzalez for negligence, 17 general negligence, negligent entrustment, negligent hiring, training, retention, and 18 supervision of an employee under Case No. ECU001562 (the “State Action”). In the State 19 Action, CVWD filed a cross-complaint against De-Sa and the County for implied 20 indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief. 21 At the time of the incident, Mr. De-Sa was insured by Citizens Insurance Company 22 of the Midwest, which had policy limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. 23 Mr. De-Sa has no other insurance which may cover the claims of the Wrongful Death 24 Plaintiffs in the instant action, Mr. Zhang in the State Action, or the actual or potential 25 cross-claims of CVWD, Gonzalez, the County, and IID. Mr. De-Sa has provided all parties 26 a Declaration of No Assets indicating that he does not have any other insurance, real estate, 27 or personal assets to resolve the claims of the Wrongful Death Plaintiffs in the instant action 28 or Mr. Zhang’s claims in the State Action. Mr. De-Sa does not admit any fault or liability 1 in this matter and maintains he is not responsible, nor did he contribute to, the accident in 2 question nor to the injuries of the Wrongful Death Plaintiffs or Mr. Zhang. 3 In December 2022, De-Sa and the Wrongful Death Plaintiffs reached a settlement 4 agreement. The material terms of the settlement agreement (“Agreement”) between the 5 Wrongful Death Plaintiffs and De-Sa (collectively, “Settling Parties”) provide: 6 • The total sum of $100,000 to be paid to Plaintiffs Jose Carlos de Araujo and 7 Helenilza Maria Oliveira de Araujo, collectively. 8 • The total sum of $100,000 to be paid to Plaintiffs Renato Alves Dos Santos and 9 Maria Tereza de Carvalho, collectively. 10 • Although not part of the Court’s approval in the instant action, De-Sa will pay the 11 remaining $100,000 of his policy limits to Mr. Zhang in the State Action. 12 • The settlement is a compromise of disputed claims and is not an admission of 13 liability by any party. 14 • The Settling Parties mutually waive all known and unknown claims pursuant to 15 California Civil Code § 1542. 16 • CVWD will dismiss its cross-complaint against De-Sa in the instant case and in the 17 State Action. 18 • Each of the parties shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. 19 • The Agreement is “conditioned on a good faith determination by the Court . . . .” 20 (Doc. No. 147 at 9–10; see also Doc. No. 152 at 2.) 21 II. LEGAL STANDARD 22 Under California law, “[w]here a release . . . is given in good faith before . . . 23 judgment to one or more of a number of tortfeasors claimed to be liable for the same tort, 24 or to one or more other co-obligors mutually subject to contribution rights,” the release 25 shall, among other things, “discharge the party to whom it is given from all liability for any 26 contribution to any other parties.” Cal. Code Civ. P. § 877. 27 To obtain a determination that it reached a settlement in good faith, “a settling party 28 1 may give notice of settlement to all parties and to the court, together with an application 2 for determination of good faith settlement.” Id. § 877.6(a)(2). Nonsettling parties are 3 thereafter given an opportunity to contest the settlement. Id. 4 If, after reviewing the application for determination of good faith settlement and any 5 response(s) thereto, the court determines the settlement was entered in good faith, “any 6 other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor” is barred “from any further claims against the settling 7 tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative 8 indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” Id. § 877.6(c); Tech- 9 Bilt, Inc. v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARISSA ARAUJO (SURVIVAL Case No.: 20-cv-01800-AJB-MDD ACTION), et al., 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR Plaintiffs, 13 DETERMINATION OF GOOD v. FAITH SETTLEMENT 14 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER 15 DISTRICT; THE COUNTY OF (Doc. No. 147) 16 IMPERIAL; JOSUE GONZALEZ; and DOES 1 TO 25, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER 19 DISTRICT, 20 Cross-Complainant, 21 v. 22 ANDRE DOS-SANTOS DE-SA, an 23 individual; COUNTY OF IMPERIAL, a Public Entity; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 24
25 Cross-Defendants. 26 27 Before the Court is Cross-Defendant Andre Dos-Santos De-Sa’s (“De-Sa”) motion 28 for determination of good faith settlement with Jose Carlos de Araujo, Helenilza Maria 1 Oliveira de Araujo, Alves Dos Santos, and Maria Tereza de Carvalho (the “Wrongful Death 2 Plaintiffs”). (Doc. No. 147.) To date, the Court has received no opposition to this motion 3 by the other parties to this case (“Nonsettling Parties”). Defendant and Cross-Complainant 4 Coachella Valley Water District has filed a Statement of Agreement and Non-Opposition 5 to the instant motion. (Doc. No. 152.) For the reasons set forth in detail below, the Court 6 GRANTS the De-Sa’s motion. 7 I. BACKGROUND 8 This action arises out of a tragic accident that occurred in unincorporated Imperial 9 County. On October 2, 2019, Cross-Defendant Andre Dos Santos De-Sa was driving a 10 Hyundai Elantra when he, along with Plaintiffs Larissa Araujo and Andressa Dos Santos 11 and non-party Cheng Zhang, were involved in a two-car, broadside collision with a van 12 driven by Defendant Josue Gonzalez, an employee of Defendant CVWD. (Doc. No. 109-1 13 at 9.) The automobile accident resulted in the deaths of Larissa Araujo and Andressa Dos 14 Santos. (Id. at 10.) 15 At the time of the collision, Defendant Gonzalez was driving a Ford E350 Super 16 Duty van southbound on English Road, while Plaintiffs, De-Sa, and Zheng were heading 17 westbound on Schrimpf Road. (Id. at 9.) Where these two roads intersect, both English 18 Road and Schrimpf Road are unpaved, graded dirt roads. (Id. at 8.) There were no stop 19 signs or other traffic controls to indicate an intersection was approaching. (Id. at 10.) Thus, 20 English Road and Schrimpf Road were two perpendicular roads that intersected without 21 any controls regulating cross-traffic. (Id.) At the time of the collision, there were no posted 22 speed limit signs at this intersection. (Id.) Thus, pursuant to California Vehicle Code 23 § 22349(b), the speed limit was 55 mph. (Id. at 11.) 24 Approximately 73 feet northeast of the intersection, there is a dirt berm 25 approximately five feet high. (Doc. No. 115 at 6.) While Mr. De-Sa was driving west on 26 Schrimpf, the dirt berm was to his right/north, while the berm was to Defendant Gonzalez’s 27 left/east as he drove south. (Doc. No. 109-1 at 11.) In 2014, this berm was designed and 28 constructed by Imperial Irrigation District (“IID”) as part of its Managed Marsh Complex, 1 Phase 2. (Doc. No. 115 at 6.) 2 In the 5 seconds before the collision, Mr. De-Sa’s Hyundai was traveling at 56 mph. 3 (Id.) From 4 to 2 seconds before the collision, the Hyundai slowed from 55 mph to 47 mph. 4 (Id.) Then, in the 1.5 seconds to 1 second before the collision, the Hyundai was traveling 5 46 mph. (Id.) Meanwhile, Defendant Gonzalez’s Ford maintained a constant speed between 6 59.0 and 60.9 mph and never slowed or activated its brakes before the collision. (Id.) Mr. 7 De-Sa’s Hyundai entered the intersection first and was thereafter hit by Defendant 8 Gonzalez’s Ford. (Id.) 9 On September 13, 2020, the Wrongful Death Plaintiffs filed the instant action 10 alleging causes of action for the wrongful deaths of decedents Larissa Araujo and Andressa 11 Dos Santos, battery, violation of civil rights, and negligence. Defendant CVWD thereafter 12 filed a cross-claim against De-Sa and the County of Imperial (the “County”) for negligence, 13 indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief. The cross-claim was later amended to add 14 IID. 15 On September 10, 2020, Mr. Zhang and De-Sa, as plaintiffs, commenced an action 16 in the Imperial County Superior Court against CVWD and Mr. Gonzalez for negligence, 17 general negligence, negligent entrustment, negligent hiring, training, retention, and 18 supervision of an employee under Case No. ECU001562 (the “State Action”). In the State 19 Action, CVWD filed a cross-complaint against De-Sa and the County for implied 20 indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief. 21 At the time of the incident, Mr. De-Sa was insured by Citizens Insurance Company 22 of the Midwest, which had policy limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. 23 Mr. De-Sa has no other insurance which may cover the claims of the Wrongful Death 24 Plaintiffs in the instant action, Mr. Zhang in the State Action, or the actual or potential 25 cross-claims of CVWD, Gonzalez, the County, and IID. Mr. De-Sa has provided all parties 26 a Declaration of No Assets indicating that he does not have any other insurance, real estate, 27 or personal assets to resolve the claims of the Wrongful Death Plaintiffs in the instant action 28 or Mr. Zhang’s claims in the State Action. Mr. De-Sa does not admit any fault or liability 1 in this matter and maintains he is not responsible, nor did he contribute to, the accident in 2 question nor to the injuries of the Wrongful Death Plaintiffs or Mr. Zhang. 3 In December 2022, De-Sa and the Wrongful Death Plaintiffs reached a settlement 4 agreement. The material terms of the settlement agreement (“Agreement”) between the 5 Wrongful Death Plaintiffs and De-Sa (collectively, “Settling Parties”) provide: 6 • The total sum of $100,000 to be paid to Plaintiffs Jose Carlos de Araujo and 7 Helenilza Maria Oliveira de Araujo, collectively. 8 • The total sum of $100,000 to be paid to Plaintiffs Renato Alves Dos Santos and 9 Maria Tereza de Carvalho, collectively. 10 • Although not part of the Court’s approval in the instant action, De-Sa will pay the 11 remaining $100,000 of his policy limits to Mr. Zhang in the State Action. 12 • The settlement is a compromise of disputed claims and is not an admission of 13 liability by any party. 14 • The Settling Parties mutually waive all known and unknown claims pursuant to 15 California Civil Code § 1542. 16 • CVWD will dismiss its cross-complaint against De-Sa in the instant case and in the 17 State Action. 18 • Each of the parties shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. 19 • The Agreement is “conditioned on a good faith determination by the Court . . . .” 20 (Doc. No. 147 at 9–10; see also Doc. No. 152 at 2.) 21 II. LEGAL STANDARD 22 Under California law, “[w]here a release . . . is given in good faith before . . . 23 judgment to one or more of a number of tortfeasors claimed to be liable for the same tort, 24 or to one or more other co-obligors mutually subject to contribution rights,” the release 25 shall, among other things, “discharge the party to whom it is given from all liability for any 26 contribution to any other parties.” Cal. Code Civ. P. § 877. 27 To obtain a determination that it reached a settlement in good faith, “a settling party 28 1 may give notice of settlement to all parties and to the court, together with an application 2 for determination of good faith settlement.” Id. § 877.6(a)(2). Nonsettling parties are 3 thereafter given an opportunity to contest the settlement. Id. 4 If, after reviewing the application for determination of good faith settlement and any 5 response(s) thereto, the court determines the settlement was entered in good faith, “any 6 other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor” is barred “from any further claims against the settling 7 tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative 8 indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” Id. § 877.6(c); Tech- 9 Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assocs., 38 Cal. 3d 488, 494 (1985); Com. Union Ins. Co. 10 v. Ford Motor Co., 640 F.2d 210, 212 (9th Cir. 1981). 11 The party asserting a lack of good faith has the burden of proof on that issue. Cal. 12 Code Civ. P. § 877.6(d). 13 To meet the standard of “good faith,” the amount of the settlement must be “within 14 the reasonable range of the settling tortfeasor’s proportional share of comparative liability 15 for the plaintiff’s injuries.” Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal. 3d at 499; see also Torres v. Union Pac. R. 16 Co., 157 Cal. App. 3d 499, 508 (1984) (holding that a defendant’s settlement price cannot 17 be “grossly disproportionate to that defendant’s fair share of the damages”). 18 In applying the reasonable-range test, courts may consider the following factors: 19 (1) “a rough approximation of the plaintiffs’ total recovery and a settlor’s proportionate 20 liability”; (2) “the amount paid in settlement”; (3) “a recognition that a settlor should pay 21 less in settlement than if found liable after a trial”; (4) “the allocation of settlement proceeds 22 among plaintiffs”; (5) “the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling 23 defendants”; and (6) evidence of “collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the 24 interests of nonsettling defendants.” Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal. 3d at 499. A settlement will be 25 deemed to have been reached in good faith, so long as it is not so far “out of the ballpark” 26 in relation to the foregoing factors “as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of 27 the statute.” Id. at 499–500. 28 A court must only weigh the Tech-Bilt factors when the good-faith nature of a 1 ||settlement is disputed. Marine Grp., LLC v. Marine Travelift, Inc., No. 10cv846 BTM 2 || (KSC), 2013 WL 416407, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2013) (citing City of Grand Terrace v. 3 || Super. Ct., 192 Cal. App. 2d 1251, 1261 (1987)). In the absence of a dispute, a “barebones 4 || motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets 5 || forth a brief background of the case is sufficient.” /d. 6 DISCUSSION 7 Here, because the Nonsettling Parties have not objected to the instant motion for 8 ||determination of good faith settlement, the Court need not apply the Tech-Bilt factors. 9 || Having reviewed the motion, the Court will grant the motion as unopposed. 10 || IV. CONCLUSION 11 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that De-Sa’s Motion for 12 || Determination of Good Faith Settlement, (Doc. No. 147), is GRANTED. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 |! Dated: January 10, 2023 | ZS rz Le 16 Hon. Anthony J.@Battaglia 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28