How to File a Good Faith Settlement Application in California

To file a good faith settlement application in California, you submit either a noticed motion or a shortened application under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, serve every other party in the case, and support the request with a declaration showing the settlement amount is reasonable under the factors from Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates. Once the court signs the order, every co-defendant is permanently barred from suing the settling party for contribution or indemnity based on comparative fault.¹

Pick Your Procedural Route

Section 877.6 gives you two ways to bring the request. Which one fits depends on whether your settlement has a confidentiality term.

Noticed Motion

Any party can file a regular noticed motion asking the court to determine that the settlement was made in good faith. Standard motion notice rules apply, and the court may shorten notice for good cause when timing is tight, such as an imminent trial date or a settlement reached mid-trial.¹

Shortened Application

The alternative is a streamlined application. The settling party serves a notice of settlement, the application itself, and a proposed order on all parties and the court. Service must be by certified mail with return receipt requested, or by personal service. The papers must identify the settling parties and lay out the basis, terms, and amount.¹

One restriction matters: the shortened application is not available if the parties have entered into a confidentiality agreement about the case or the settlement terms. If confidentiality is part of the deal, you must use the noticed motion.¹

What to Put in the Papers

Whichever route you take, the moving papers need to give the judge enough to evaluate the settlement. At a minimum, include:

The identities of the plaintiff and settling defendant, the dollar amount, and any non-monetary terms.
A supporting declaration that summarizes the key facts, describes the settling defendant’s potential exposure, and explains why the amount is reasonable given that exposure.
Either the signed settlement agreement or a thorough description of its material terms.
A proposed order for the judge to sign.

The declaration is where the application succeeds or fails. It should walk the court through the factors the judge will apply, covering estimated total damages, the settling defendant’s likely share of fault, and any financial or insurance limits that justify a lower payment. A declaration that says “the parties agreed to $50,000” without context gives the court nothing to work with and invites a challenge from the remaining defendants.

Address the Tech-Bilt Factors

California courts evaluate good faith using the framework from Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates. The factors are practical rather than rigid, and the judge applies them based on information available when the settlement was reached:²

A rough approximation of the plaintiff’s total recovery.
The settling defendant’s proportionate liability.
Whether the settlement amount falls within a reasonable range given the first two.
Allocation of the settlement among plaintiffs, if there is more than one.
A settlement discount, because early resolution has recognized value and a settling defendant is expected to pay less than a full-liability verdict.
The settling defendant’s financial condition and insurance policy limits.
Any evidence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed at the non-settling parties.

The core point from Tech-Bilt is that the amount need not match the settling defendant’s share of fault precisely. It has to be within a reasonable range. Judges are making rough approximations, not conducting a mini-trial on liability. Applications tend to run into trouble when the number is so low compared to obvious exposure that it looks like the plaintiff cut a deal to concentrate liability on the remaining defendants.

Build your declaration around these factors in order. If your defendant has thin insurance or a documented inability to pay, attach proof. If liability is genuinely disputed, explain why. If the case involves multiple plaintiffs, show how the money is being split.

Serve Everyone and Track the Contest Window

Once served, the non-settling defendants have a limited window to challenge the settlement:

25 days from the date of mailing if served by certified mail.
20 days from the date of service if served personally.¹

If nobody contests within the deadline, the court may approve the settlement without a hearing.¹ In many multi-defendant cases, the remaining parties know the number is reasonable and let it go, and the whole matter resolves on paper.

If a Co-Defendant Contests

A non-settling party who thinks the amount is unreasonably low must file its own motion contesting the settlement within the statutory period. The burden of proof rests entirely on the challenger, not on the settling parties.¹ The challenger has to show the amount is so far outside the reasonable range of the settling defendant’s proportionate liability that it cannot be good faith.

The court decides on the declarations and affidavits from both sides, though the judge may take other evidence at the hearing.¹ After the hearing, the judge either approves the settlement as being in good faith or denies the application. Approval triggers the statutory bar against future contribution and indemnity claims by the remaining co-defendants.

Filing Fee

As of January 2026, the California Superior Court filing fee for a motion requiring a hearing is $60.³ The same fee applies to a contest motion filed by a non-settling party. Attorney’s fees for preparing the papers are the real cost.

Sliding Scale and Mary Carter Agreements

If your settlement ties the settling defendant’s ultimate liability to whatever the plaintiff recovers from the remaining defendants, extra rules apply. California law calls these sliding scale recovery agreements; they are commonly known as Mary Carter agreements. Because the settling defendant’s financial interest quietly shifts to favor the plaintiff’s case, the statute treats them with heightened scrutiny.

The parties must promptly inform the court of the agreement’s existence and terms. Before entering into one, the settling parties must give at least 72 hours’ advance notice to all non-signatory defendants, though the court may shorten that period for good cause.⁴

If the settling defendant testifies at trial, the court must disclose the existence and content of the agreement to the jury upon any party’s motion, unless the judge finds disclosure would create a substantial danger of undue prejudice or confusion.⁴ The disclosure is limited to what the jury needs to evaluate potential bias.

Challenging the Ruling Is Writ Review Only

A good faith settlement determination cannot be attacked through a regular appeal. The only avenue is a petition for writ of mandate, filed within 20 days after written notice of the determination. The trial court may extend that deadline by up to an additional 20 days.¹

Writ review is discretionary. The appellate court can simply decline to hear it, which makes the trial court’s ruling effectively final in most cases. The fight at the trial court level is the one that counts, so put the effort into the declaration and the supporting evidence the first time.

1
California Legislative Information. California Code CCP – Section 877.6
2
Justia. Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde and Associates
3
Judicial Council of California. Statewide Civil Fee Schedule Effective January 1, 2026
4
California Legislative Information. California Code CCP – Section 877.5