Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02899/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02899-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 385
Nature of Suit: Property Damage - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CSAA INSURANCE EXCHANGE,

Plaintiff,

v.

BEST BUY CO., INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02899-DMR 

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 

JOINT MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH 

SETTLEMENT 

Re: Dkt. No. 63

Defendants LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (“LG”) and Best Buy Co. (“Best Buy”) 

(collectively “Defendants”) move the court for a good faith settlement determination pursuant to 

California Code of Civil Procedure 877.6. Plaintiff CSAA Insurance Exchange (“Plaintiff”) filed 

no opposition. The motion is suitable for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local 

Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons below, the court grants the motion. 

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

The underlying action between Plaintiff and Defendants is a subrogation action. Plaintiff, 

an insurance company, paid $164,426.25 to Mona Verducci, its insured, for property-related 

damage and associated loss of use expenses related to water damage in her home. [Joint Mot. at 1-

2]. Plaintiff alleges that the water damage was caused by a leak in the LG refrigerator Verducci 

purchased from Best Buy. Plaintiff filed this action against LG, the manufacturer of the 

refrigerator, and Best Buy, the seller of the refrigerator, seeking reimbursement for the amounts it 

paid to Verducci. 

On May 11, 2015, Plaintiff commenced this action in state court, alleging causes of action 

for strict products liability, negligence, and negligent failure to recall or retrofit against LG and 

Best Buy, and breach of implied warranty against Best Buy. [Joint Mot. at 2]. Best Buy removed 

the action on June 20, 2015. [Joint Mot. at 2]. The parties thereafter participated in case 

Case 4:15-cv-02899-DMR Document 67 Filed 02/13/17 Page 1 of 5
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

management conferences and engaged in discovery. [Joint Mot. at 2]. The trial date was set for 

December 5, 2016. [Joint Mot. at 2]. 

On November 2, 2016, the parties participated in a mandatory settlement conference before 

the Honorable Joseph C. Spero, during which they reached a settlement on the following terms: 

LG agreed to pay Plaintiff $90,000.00 and Best Buy agreed to pay Plaintiff $10,000.00, for a total 

settlement of $100,000.00. [Joint Mot. at 2]; Thomas Decl., ¶ 3 [Ex. A to Joint Mot.]. Defendants 

now move for a determination of good faith settlement. [Joint Mot. at 1-10]. They contend that 

the settlement met the “good faith” standard set forth in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & 

Assocs., 38 Cal. 3d 488, 499 (1985). [Joint Mot. at 6-9]. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6 govern this motion.1 These 

statutes govern settlements among joint tortfeasors and are aimed at two objectives: “equitable 

sharing of costs among the parties at fault, and . . . encouragement of settlements.” River Garden 

Farms, Inc. v. Superior Court, 26 Cal. App. 3d 986, 993(1972); see also Tech–Bilt, Inc., 38 Cal.3d 

at 494. The good faith requirement “mandates that the courts review agreements purportedly 

made under [the section's] aegis to insure that such settlements appropriately balance the 

contribution statute's dual objectives.” Tech–Bilt, 38 Cal.3d at 494. Any party is entitled to a 

hearing on the issue of a good faith settlement; however, a settling party may proactively file a 

motion for good faith determination of the settlement. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6(a). The 

application must “indicate the settling parties, and the basis, terms, and amount of the settlement.” 

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6(a)(2). In the absence of any opposition, the court may approve the 

motion without a hearing. Id. Finding that the settlement was made in good faith “shall bar any 

other joint tortfeasor . . . from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor . . . for equitable 

 

1

“Where, as here, a court sits in diversity, state substantive law applies to the state law claims.” 

Res-Care Inc. v. Roto-Rooter Servs. Co., No. C 09-3856 EDL DMR, 2011 WL 3610701, at *1 

(N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2011) (citing In re Larry's Apartment, LLC, 249 F.3d 832, 837 (9th Cir. 

2001)). “California Code of Civil Procedure section 877 constitutes substantive law.” Res-Care 

Inc, 2011 WL 3610701 at *1 (citing Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Butler, 904 F.2d 505, 511 (9th 

Cir. 1990)).

Case 4:15-cv-02899-DMR Document 67 Filed 02/13/17 Page 2 of 5
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence 

or comparative fault.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6(c). 

In Tech–Bilt, the California Supreme Court established a set of factors to determine 

whether the “good faith” requirement is satisfied when reviewing a motion submitted under 

section 877.6:

[T]he intent and policies underlying section 877.6 require 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.

38 Cal.3d at 499. A party opposing a determination of good faith “must demonstrate . . . 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.” Id. at 499–500. 

A party asserting the absence of good faith carries the burden of proof. Cal. Civ. Proc.

Code § 877.6(d). On account of this burden, “only when the good faith nature of a settlement is 

disputed” must the court “consider and weigh the Tech–Bilt factors.” City of Grand Terrace v. 

Superior Court, 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1261 (1987). Otherwise, if no party objects, “the 

barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which 

sets forth a brief background of the case is sufficient” to establish that the settlement was reached 

in good faith. Id.; see also Res-Care Inc., 2011 WL 3610701, at *1–2 (collecting cases). 

III. DISCUSSION 

Defendants jointly assert that the settlement meets the good faith standard when evaluated 

under the Tech-Bilt factors because (1) the settlement is within the “reasonable range” of their 

proportional share of liability for Plaintiff’s injuries, (2) the amount of the settlement is less than 

what they would have to pay if they were found liable after a trial, (3) there has been no collusion 

among Defendants and (4) the settlement was the result of an “arms-length negotiation.” [Joint 

Mot. at 7-9]. Defendants also provided the essential terms of the settlement pursuant to section 

Case 4:15-cv-02899-DMR Document 67 Filed 02/13/17 Page 3 of 5
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

877.6(a)(2). 

Since Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion, the court does not need to evaluate 

the settlement under the Tech-Bilt factors. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6(d) (indicating 

presumption of good faith); Res-Case Inc., 2011 WL 3610701 at *3. Nonetheless, in an 

abundance of caution, the court undertakes the analysis pursuant to Tech–Bilt as presented by 

Defendants in the unopposed joint motion.

Several of the Tech–Bilt factors are not at issue here. There was no evidence of collusion, 

fraud, or tortious conduct. Nor is there evidence that Defendants were burdened by financial 

conditions or insurance policy limits. Thus, the court focuses on the remaining salient Tech–Bilt

factors, which are the amounts paid and Defendants’ proportionate liability. The amounts paid 

must not be “grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person, at the time of settlement, would 

estimate the settling defendant's liability to be.” Torres v. Union Pac. R. Co., 157 Cal. App. 3d 

499, 509 (1984).

Here, the court finds that the total settlement of $100,000.00 ($90,000.00 from LG and 

$10,000.00 from Best Buy) was fair and reasonable and within the “ballpark” range set by Tech–

Bilt for several reasons. First, the water leak occurred more than 8 years after the delivery of the 

LG refrigerator. This presents a significant causation hurdle for Plaintiff. Additionally, there 

appears to be at least a triable dispute as to whether the leak from the LG refrigerator was 

responsible for the extent of the water damage in Verducci’s home. See Kovarsky Expert Report 

[Exhibit B] at 16. Furthermore, while some of the amounts Plaintiff paid to Verducci for moldrelated damage appear to be reasonable, others seem excessive, such as the approximately 

$100,000.00 in construction costs on Verducci’s home. Lastly, Defendant’s expert opined that a 

reasonable settlement of Plaintiff’s claim was $76,101.96, so a settlement of $100,000.00 would 

be within a reasonable range. [Joint Mot. at 7]. 

Defendants’ motion for good faith settlement is therefore granted.

//

//

//

Case 4:15-cv-02899-DMR Document 67 Filed 02/13/17 Page 4 of 5
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court grants the unopposed motion for determination of 

good faith settlement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2017

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:15-cv-02899-DMR Document 67 Filed 02/13/17 Page 5 of 5