On August 30, 2018 a
Tentative Ruling
was filed
involving a dispute between
Bernard Te Velde And Rebecca Dee Te Velde, Trustees Of The 2000 Te Velde Family Trust *,,
Holt Repair & Manufacturing, Inc.,
Mona Tovar, Individually And As Special Administrator Of The Estate Of Carlos Alexander Tovar, Deceased,
and
Bernard Dee Te Velde And Rebecca Dee Te Velde, Trustees Of The 2000 Te Velde Family Trust,
Holt Repairs & Manufacturing, Inc.,
for civil
in the District Court of San Joaquin County.
Preview
Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin
Tentative Ruling
Date: 05/28/2019 Case Number: STK-CV-UPI-2018-0010826
Mona Tovar vs Rebecca Dee Te Velde et.al.
Event: Motions
Event Date: 05/30/2019 at 9:00 AM in Department 11B
Preference and GFS
18-10826 Tovar Preference 5/30/2019
Plaintiffs Mona Tovar, et al., move the court for an order to grant preference for the setting of a trial date. Having read and
considered the written motion, the court issues the following tentative ruling:
No opposition has been received.
Code of Civil Procedure section 36 subd. (b) provides that a “civil action to recover damages for wrongful death or
personal injury shall be entitled to preference upon the motion of any party to the action who is under 14 years of age
unless the court finds that the party does not have a substantial interest in the case as a whole.” Plaintiff Olivia Tovar is
under age 14. It is alleged that she is the child of Plaintiff Mona Tovar.
This court finds that Plaintiff Olivia Tovar has a substantial interest in the case as a whole and is entitled to preference.
The motion for preference under subd. (b) is granted.
Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subd. (f) provides that the court shall set the matter for trial not more than 120 days
from the date the motion is heard. The 120th day from May 30th is September 27, 2019.
According to the previous arrangement with the court, the jury trial scheduled to begin September 3, 2019 at 1:30 p.m.
Department 11B. The MSC is scheduled for August 26, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 11B.
Ross
5/28/2019
……………….
18-10826 Tovar GFS 5/30/2019
Defendant Holt Repair & Manufacturing, Inc. Plaintiff Mona Tovar, individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate
of Carlos Tovar, deceased, Isaiah Tovar and Olivia Tovar, minors, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Mona Tovar,
move for an order determining that the settlement with said Plaintiffs was made in good faith. Having read and
considered the written motion, opposition, and reply, the court issues the following tentative ruling:
This case is a tragedy involving the family of Carlos Tovar. The settlement amount is $1,000,000.00, which is the limit
insurance policy of Defendant Holt.
A determination as to whether a settlement is in good faith must be left to the discretion of the trial court. (Tech Bilt, Inc.
v. Woodward Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488.)
The party asserting the lack of good faith should be permitted to 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. Such a
demonstration would establish that the proposed settlement was not a “settlement made in good faith” within the terms of
section 877.6.
The factors set out in Tech-Bilt include, “a rough approximation of plaintiff's 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 considerations are “the
financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants, as well as the existence of collusion, fraud or
tortious conduct aimed at injuring the interests of nonsettling defendants. …
Tentative Ruling
Mona Tovar vs Rebecca Dee Te Velde et.al. STK-CV-UPI-2018-0010826
“Another key factor is the settling tortfeasor's potential liability for indemnity to joint tortfeasors … . The trial court
calculates “the culpability of the [settling] tortfeasor vis-à-vis other parties alleged to be responsible for the same injury.
Potential liability for indemnity to a nonsettling defendant is an important consideration for the trial court in determining
whether to approve a settlement by an alleged tortfeasor….. (Long Beach Memorial Medical Center v. Superior Court
(2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 865, 873, as modified (Apr. 1, 2009)
The court has considered the facts as presented and considered the factors set out in Tech Bilt. There are two minor
children and their mother. The settlement amount of $1 million is substantial and does not impose potentially
disproportionate cost on the Te Velde defendants. Holt may not have assets to meet any liability over the amount of their
insurance coverage.
The Te Velde defendants have not met their burden to show that the settlement wasn’t bad faith.
After considering all factors, the court finds that the settlement is made in good faith pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section §877.6.
The motion is granted.
It is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the settlement between the parties indicated above is found to be made
in good faith pursuant to CCP §877.6; that any and all claims filed in this case by against Defendant Holt Repair &
Manufacturing, Inc. be dismissed with prejudice; and that all actual or potential claims by any other joint tortfeasor against
Defendant Holt Repair & Manufacturing, Inc. for equitable, partial or comparative indemnity, including total indemnity or
contribution, are forever barred.
The moving party may submit an order that conforms to the court’s ruling. (Rule 3.1312)
All other dates remain.
Ross
5/28/2019
…………..….
Tentative Ruling
Document Filed Date
May 28, 2019
Case Filing Date
August 30, 2018
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin Tentative Ruling Date: 05/28/2019 Case Number: STK-CV-UPI-2018-0010826 Mona Tovar vs Rebecca Dee Te Velde et.al. Event: Motions Event Date: 05/30/2019 at 9:00 AM in Department 11B Preference and GFS 18-10826 Tovar Preference 5/30/2019 Plaintiffs Mona Tovar, et al., move the court for an order to grant preference for the setting of a trial date. Having read and considered the written motion, the court issues the following tentative ruling: No opposition has been received. Code of Civil Procedure section 36 subd. (b) provides that a “civil action to recover damages for wrongful death or personal injury shall be entitled to preference upon the motion of any party to the action who is under 14 years of age unless the court finds that the party does not have a substantial interest in the case as a whole.” Plaintiff Olivia Tovar is under age 14. It is alleged that she is the child of Plaintiff Mona Tovar. This court finds that Plaintiff Olivia Tovar has a substantial interest in the case as a whole and is entitled to preference. The motion for preference under subd. (b) is granted. Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subd. (f) provides that the court shall set the matter for trial not more than 120 days from the date the motion is heard. The 120th day from May 30th is September 27, 2019. According to the previous arrangement with the court, the jury trial scheduled to begin September 3, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. Department 11B. The MSC is scheduled for August 26, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 11B. Ross 5/28/2019 ………………. 18-10826 Tovar GFS 5/30/2019 Defendant Holt Repair & Manufacturing, Inc. Plaintiff Mona Tovar, individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Carlos Tovar, deceased, Isaiah Tovar and Olivia Tovar, minors, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Mona Tovar, move for an order determining that the settlement with said Plaintiffs was made in good faith. Having read and considered the written motion, opposition, and reply, the court issues the following tentative ruling: This case is a tragedy involving the family of Carlos Tovar. The settlement amount is $1,000,000.00, which is the limit insurance policy of Defendant Holt. A determination as to whether a settlement is in good faith must be left to the discretion of the trial court. (Tech Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488.) The party asserting the lack of good faith should be permitted to 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. Such a demonstration would establish that the proposed settlement was not a “settlement made in good faith” within the terms of section 877.6. The factors set out in Tech-Bilt include, “a rough approximation of plaintiff's 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 considerations are “the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants, as well as the existence of collusion, fraud or tortious conduct aimed at injuring the interests of nonsettling defendants. … Tentative Ruling Mona Tovar vs Rebecca Dee Te Velde et.al. STK-CV-UPI-2018-0010826 “Another key factor is the settling tortfeasor's potential liability for indemnity to joint tortfeasors … . The trial court calculates “the culpability of the [settling] tortfeasor vis-à-vis other parties alleged to be responsible for the same injury. Potential liability for indemnity to a nonsettling defendant is an important consideration for the trial court in determining whether to approve a settlement by an alleged tortfeasor….. (Long Beach Memorial Medical Center v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 865, 873, as modified (Apr. 1, 2009) The court has considered the facts as presented and considered the factors set out in Tech Bilt. There are two minor children and their mother. The settlement amount of $1 million is substantial and does not impose potentially disproportionate cost on the Te Velde defendants. Holt may not have assets to meet any liability over the amount of their insurance coverage. The Te Velde defendants have not met their burden to show that the settlement wasn’t bad faith. After considering all factors, the court finds that the settlement is made in good faith pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section §877.6. The motion is granted. It is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the settlement between the parties indicated above is found to be made in good faith pursuant to CCP §877.6; that any and all claims filed in this case by against Defendant Holt Repair & Manufacturing, Inc. be dismissed with prejudice; and that all actual or potential claims by any other joint tortfeasor against Defendant Holt Repair & Manufacturing, Inc. for equitable, partial or comparative indemnity, including total indemnity or contribution, are forever barred. The moving party may submit an order that conforms to the court’s ruling. (Rule 3.1312) All other dates remain. Ross 5/28/2019 …………..…. Tentative Ruling