Tentative Ruling: Jameson Moore et al vs Target Corporation et al
Case Number
22CV01230
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Fri, 04/24/2026 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Motion: Good Faith Settlement
Tentative Ruling
For all reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant Kone Inc. for determination of good faith settlement between Kone Inc. and plaintiffs Jameson Moore, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Katy Kelly, M.D., Jackson Moore, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Derek Moore, M.D., and Derek Moore, M.D., is continued to June 26, 2026.
Background:
Plaintiffs Derek Moore, M.D. (Derek), Jameson Moore (Jameson), by and through his guardian ad litem Katy Kelly, M.D., and Jackson Moore (Jackson), a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Derek (collectively, Plaintiffs), filed their original complaint for damages on April 1, 2022, against Target Corporation (Target) and Mitsubishi Electric, US, Inc. (Mitsubishi). (Note: To avoid confusion due to common familial last names, the court will refer to Plaintiffs individually by their first names. No disrespect is intended.) Notwithstanding the causes of action identified in its caption, the complaint alleges four causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) strict products liability–design defect; (3) strict products liability–failure to warn; and (4) fraudulent concealment.
On August 3, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (FAC) against Target and Mitsubishi alleging four causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) strict products liability–design defect (against Mitsubishi only); (3) strict products liability–failure to warn (against Mitsubishi only); and (4) fraudulent concealment.
On May 16, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a notice of related case identifying case number 22CV01182 entitled India Kenan, et al. vs. Target Corporation (the Kenan Action) as related to the present action.
On June 15, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an amendment to the FAC substituting Kone Inc. (Kone) for fictitiously named defendant Doe 6, where it appears on the FAC.
On July 19, 2023, the court entered an order in the Kenan Action, ordering that action related to the present action.
On February 9, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint (SAC) for: (1) general negligence (against all defendants); (2) strict products liability–design defect (against Kone and Mitsubishi); (3) strict products liability–failure to warn (against Kone and Mitsubishi); and (4) breach of implied warranty of merchantability (against all defendants). The factual allegations in the SAC were substantially the same as the allegations in the FAC.
On July 5, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the operative third amended complaint (TAC) setting forth the same causes of action as set forth in the SAC.
As alleged in Plaintiffs’ operative TAC:
On November 10, 2021, Plaintiffs were customers at a Target store located at 3891 State Street in Santa Barbara. (TAC, ¶ 6.) Derek is the father of Jameson and Jackson who are natural brothers. (TAC, ¶ 27.) While Plaintiffs were descending an escalator at the Target store, Jameson lost part of his right little finger when an amputation occurred. (TAC, ¶¶ 8-11.) Derek and Jackson witnessed the amputation. (TAC, ¶37.)
Target retained Mitsubishi to maintain the escalator. (TAC, ¶ 9.) Both Target and Mitsubishi were responsible for the safe operation, maintenance, and repair of the escalator. (Ibid.)
An identical incident occurred at the same Target store on June 21, 2021. (TAC, ¶ 8.) Four-year-old India Kenan, who is not a party to this action, was descending the same escalator with her father when the small finger of India Kenan’s right hand was amputated. (Ibid.) Target and Mitsubishi received notice and knowledge of the defective nature of the escalator after India Kenan suffered injury as described above. (Ibid.)
There was an opening in the skirt or apron of the escalator large enough for human fingers and other body parts to get caught and amputated. (TAC, ¶ 15.) Defendants had actual notice that the escalator was defective and exposed customers and their children to amputations and other injuries. (TAC, ¶ 11.) Defendants failed to shut down, repair, modify, or fix the escalator before other customers could use it. (TAC, ¶¶ 12-14.) Defendants also concealed the defective condition of the escalator from Plaintiffs and the general public and did not warn the public or Target customers that the escalator was dangerous. (TAC, ¶ 16.)
On August 6, 2024, Mitsubishi filed an answer to the TAC generally denying the allegations therein and setting forth 26 affirmative defenses.
On August 6, 2024, Target filed an answer to the TAC generally denying the allegations therein and setting forth 25 affirmative defenses.
On March 22, 2024, the court ordered the Kenan Action consolidated with this action for discovery purposes.
On December 20, 2024, the court granted Kone’s motion to strike the prayer for punitive damages against Kone in the TAC.
On January 1, 2025, Kone filed an answer to the TAC generally denying the allegations therein and setting forth 21 affirmative defenses.
On March 5, 2026, Kone filed this motion for determination of good faith settlement between Kone and Plaintiffs in the amount of $150,000 (Settlement).
On March 5, 2026, Kone filed a proof of service indicating that this motion was served on Target and Mitsubishi, as well as on the plaintiffs in the Kenan Action.
On April 16, 2026, Kone filed a notice of non-opposition indicating that no opposition or response to this motion had been filed with the court or served on Kone.
Analysis:
“Any party to an action in which 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 … upon giving notice ….” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(1).) “A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith 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 fault.” (Id., subd. (c).) “The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.” (Id., subd. (d).)
A court must consider relevant 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, 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. [Citation.] Finally, practical considerations obviously require that the evaluation be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement. ‘[A] defendant’s settlement figure must not be grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person, at the time of the settlement, would estimate the settling defendant’s liability to be.’ [Citation.] The party asserting the lack of good faith, who has the burden of proof on that issue … 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.” (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499-500 (Tech-Bilt).)
Under the Settlement between Plaintiffs and Kone, Kone will pay Plaintiffs $150,000 to settle all claims by Plaintiffs against Kone in this action. (Dalzell Decl., ¶ 4.) Prior to executing the Settlement, Plaintiffs considered Kone’s motion for summary judgment, which emphasized Kone’s limited involvement pertaining to Plaintiffs’ injuries. (Dalzell Decl., ¶ 5, Exs. 1-3.) Prior to filing this motion, counsel for Plaintiffs conferred with counsel for the non-settling defendants, Mitsubishi and Target, and these non-settling defendants indicated they did not intend to oppose or object to this motion. (Dalzell Decl., ¶ 7.) The court’s records indicate that the non-settling defendants were served with this motion and did not file any opposition or response.
The court has preliminarily considered the Tech-Bilt factors as well as the fact that no party has opposed this motion. The court would be inclined to grant Kone’s motion for determination of good faith settlement. However, as noted in Kone’s moving papers, the Settlement is subject to court approval since it involves the compromise of a minor’s claim. (Dalzell Decl., ¶ 6.) As noted by Kone, “[t]he [S]ettlement cannot be finalized or funded until the minors’ compromises are approved by the Court.” (Ibid.) No motion for approval of compromise of a minor’s claim has been filed as to the Settlement. (Ibid.)
“An agreement to settle or compromise a claim made by a minor ‘is valid only after it has been approved … by the superior court....’ in the county where the minor resides or the action could have been brought.” (Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1337 (Pearson); see also Prob. Code, § 3500, subd. (b).) “The … guardian ad litem so appearing for any minor … shall have power, with the approval of the court … to compromise the same ….” (Code Civ. Proc., § 372, subd. (a)(3).) “[W]hile the motion for approval of the minor’s compromise is pending, the settlement agreement is voidable only at the election of the minor or his guardian.” (Pearson, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 1337.)
“At no time has this court approved any minor’s compromise in this matter. Such approval is a prerequisite to a valid settlement. Since there never was a valid approval of minor’s compromise no legally valid settlement exists. A fortiori, no determination of a good faith settlement … may be entered.” (Anderson v. Latimer (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 667, 676 (Anderson).)
Because the Settlement involves the compromise of a minor’s claim in this action that has not yet been approved by the court, the settlement is not yet final. (Prob. Code, § 3500, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 372, subd. (a)(3).) Thus, it would be premature for the court to rule on Kone’s motion at this time. (Anderson, supra, 166 Cal.App.3d at p. 676.) The court will continue this motion to June 26, 2026. If the Settlement is approved on or before June 26, the court will fully address Kone’s motion on its merits at the June 26 hearing. It would be convenient for the court if the Plaintiffs set their motion to approve the compromise of minors’ claims as to the Settlement on this same June 26 hearing.