Minnesota Life Insurance Company v. Philpot et al

Filing 136

ORDER Granting 121 Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 8/19/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MINNESOTA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,

12
13
14
15

v.

Case No. 11cv00812 BTM (POR)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR DETERMINATION OF
GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff,

BRIAN MICHAEL PHILPOT, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Pending before the Court is a motion for determination of good faith settlement

18

filed by Plaintiff Minnesota Life Insurance Company and Defendant Alex Almeida

19

(ECF No. 121). For the reasons set forth herein, the Court GRANTS the motion for

20

determination of good faith settlement.

21
22

I. BACKGROUND

23
24

This action arises out of an alleged fraudulent scheme, coordinated among the

25

various defendants (insurance sales agents, their employers, and their funding entities),

26

to elicit large sales commissions from Plaintiff for policies that were deliberately

27

allowed to lapse— resulting in Plaintiff paying more in sales commissions than it

28

earned in policy payments. For a more comprehensive overview of the events giving
1

11cv00812 BTM (POR)

1

rise to this lawsuit, see the Court’s September 25, 2012 Order re Motions to Dismiss

2

(ECF No. 101).

3

On February 4, 2013, Plaintiff and Defendant Almeida filed a joint motion for

4

determination of good faith settlement (ECF No. 121), along with the accompanying

5

settlement agreement (filed under seal). The material terms of the settlement agreement

6

provide:1
•

9

Each of the parties shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs.

•

8

Mr. Almeida will cause a certain sum of money to be paid to
Plaintiff.

•

7

In return for the payments, Plaintiff will dismiss the case as to Mr.
Almeida.

10
11
12
13

On July 22, 2013, the Court ordered the parties to submit evidence as to Mr.
Almeida’s individual liability (ECF No. 133). Plaintiff submitted the evidence on July
26, 2013 (see ECF Nos. 134 & 135).

14
15

II. DISCUSSION

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Plaintiff Minnesota Life and Defendant Alex Almeida seeks a determination by
the Court that their settlement is in good faith. As discussed below, the Court finds that
it is.
Under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6(a)(1), “[a]ny party to an action wherein it is
alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors shall be entitled to a hearing on the
issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and
one or more alleged tortfeasors . . . .” If the court determines that the settlement was
made in good faith, such determination “shall bar any other joint tortfeasor from any
further claims against the settling tortfeasor for equitable comparative contribution, or
partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative

27
28

1

Order.

The Court excepts from the sealing the terms of the settlement set forth in this
2

11cv00812 BTM (POR)

1

fault.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6(c). A party asserting the lack of good faith bears

2

the burden of proof on that issue. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6(d).

3

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

4

case in which the good faith nature of the settlement was disputed, the California

5

Supreme Court set forth a number of factors to be considered by the court in

6

determining whether a settlement is in good faith, including: (1) a rough approximation

7

of plaintiffs’ total recovery and the settlors’ proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid

8

in settlement; (3) the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (4) a

9

recognition that the settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found

10

liable after trial; (5) the financial condition and insurance policy limits of settling

11

defendant; and (6) the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure

12

the interests of non-settling defendants.

13

The California Court of Appeal has held that it is incumbent upon the court

14

deciding the motion for good faith settlement to consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt

15

factors only when the good faith nature of a settlement is disputed. City of Grand

16

Terrace v. Superior Court, 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1261 (1987). “That is to say, when

17

no one objects, the barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith,

18

accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is

19

sufficient.” Id.; see also Hernandez v. Sutter Medical Center of Santa Rosa, 2009 WL

20

322937 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2009) (granting motion for good faith settlement without

21

performing Tech-Bilt analysis because there were no objections); Bonds v. Nicoletti

22

Oil, Inc., 2008 WL 4104272 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2008) (declining to weigh Tech-Bilt

23

factors because there was no opposition to the motion for good faith settlement).

24

Here, no opposition or objections have been filed to the motion. Accordingly,

25

the Court does not deem it necessary to engage in a comprehensive Tech-Bilt analysis.

26

The Court has reviewed the terms of the settlement, as well as the supplemental

27

evidence submitted by Plaintiff regarding Mr. Almeida’s individual liability, and is

28

satisfied that the settlement is in good faith. There is no evidence of collusion or fraud,
3

11cv00812 BTM (POR)

1

and the amount to be paid by Mr. Almeida under the settlement agreement is

2

reasonable given Plaintiff’s estimation of his individual liability as compared to the

3

cost of further litigation.

4
5

The Court concludes that the settlement is in good faith and GRANTS the
motion.

6

III. CONCLUSION

7
8

For the reasons discussed above, the settling defendant’s motion for

9

determination of good faith settlement is GRANTED. The settlements reached

10

between Plaintiff and Defendant Alex Almeida is found to be in good faith within the

11

meaning of Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6, and any other joint tortfeasor is barred from

12

any further claims against Defendant Almeida for equitable comparative contribution

13

or comparative indemnity based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

DATED: August 19, 2013

17
18

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge
United States District Court

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

11cv00812 BTM (POR)