Motion for Good Faith Settlement

Useful Rulings on Motion for Good Faith Settlement (CCP 877.6)

Recent Rulings on Motion for Good Faith Settlement (CCP 877.6)

1-25 of 10000 results

YESLENDER, LLC, A PENNSYLVANIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS FIVE BULLS TRANSPORT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

On March 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Five Bulls, Anacleto and Does 1-5 for: Breach of Written Agreement Breach of Written Guaranty Money Had and Received Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Common Count Fraud Constructive Trust Unfair Business Practices Failure to Compensate for All Hours Worked in Violation of Labor Code § 1198 On July 6, 2020, Five Bulls’ and Anacleto’s defaults were entered.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ANTHONY SAM VS RENEE KWAN ET AL

Board of Fire and Police Pension Commissioners assert that it “has acted in good faith by bringing this motion as soon as was practical after new trial counsel substituted in and discovered the need to amend the cross-complaint.” (Id at p. 7:6-7.) The Court finds that Board of Fire and Police Pension Commissioners’ motion complies with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 and there exists good cause for allowing the amendment.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CHING FU CHANG, ET AL. VS PAN MING LEI, ET AL.

On August 8, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants and Does 1-20 for: Breach of Contract Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Common Count Fraud Constructive Trust Unfair Business Practices Failure to Compensate for All Hours Worked in Violation of Labor Code § 1198 On October 3, 2019, Wu’s, Pan’s, ZHDI’s, Trend’s and Z&SHDI’s defaults were entered.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HAGOP TCHAKERIAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

(n) [failure to provide reasonable accommodation claim exists where an employer fails “to engage in a timely, good faith, interactive process with the employee or applicant to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee or applicant with a known physical or mental disability or known medical condition”].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CYNTHIA MARIA RIBAS VS BEAU MONDE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

Ribas (Plaintiff) filed suit against Defendant Beau Monde Association and Sommer Adel Salam (Defendant Rodriguez), alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) libel per se, (4) slander per se, (5) fraud (false promise), (6) negligent misrepresentation, and (7) breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

TITO A THOMAS VS MARK ANTHONY SARNO

A defendant may serve and file such a notice of motion to quash service of summons on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

CYNTHIA MARIA RIBAS VS BEAU MONDE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

Ribas (Plaintiff) filed suit against Defendant Beau Monde Association and Sommer Adel Salam (Defendant Rodriguez), alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) libel per se, (4) slander per se, (5) fraud (false promise), (6) negligent misrepresentation, and (7) breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

RUTH XIAOYU ZHANG VS NESTOR H. LLERNA

On August 23, 2018, a “Stipulation [and Order] Re: Determination of Good Faith Settlement Between Defendants US National Investment Group, Inc. dba US National Realty and Jenny Kong and [Plaintiffs]” was filed. On October 25, 2018, Plaintiffs dismissed Kong and U.S. National with prejudice. On October 15, 2019, the remittitur was filed (affirmed).

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PERSOLVE LEGAL GROUP LLP VS DUONG HANG, AN INDIVIDUAL

Legal Standard CCP § 664.6 provides that “[i]f parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

VINCENT BERRY VS EVERPORT TERMINAL SERVICES, INC.

Moreover, FEHA requires employers to engage in a good faith interactive process to determine effective reasonable accommodations, if any, “in response to a request for reasonable accommodation by an employee . . . with a known physical or mental disability . . . .” (Gov’t Code § 12940, subd. (n); Raine v. City of Burbank (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1222.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BENJAMIN F. POCO, ET AL. VS WORLD SAVINGS BANK, FSB, ET AL.

June 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants Bank, All Persons Unknown Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien, or Interest in the Property Described in this Complaint Adverse to Plaintiff’s [sic] Title or Any Cloud on Plaintiff’s [sic] Title Thereto (“All Persons”) and Does 1-10 for: Quite [sic] Title Cancellation of Instruments Violation of the California Homeowners Bill of Rights (“HBOR”) Breach of Contract Violation of Court Approved Settlement

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

PENTECH FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. VS RENE MEDINA

The time set for hearing shall be not later than 45 days after the application is filed or such later time as the court orders upon a showing of good cause.” (CCP § 704.770(a).) “Not later than 30 days before the time set for hearing, the judgment creditor shall do both of the following: (1) Serve on the judgment debtor a copy of the order to show cause, a copy of the application of the judgment creditor, and a copy of the notice of the hearing in the form prescribed by the Judicial Council.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

DELMY YOJANA CASTEJON VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, a long, unwarranted and unexcused delay in presenting it may be a good reason for denial. In most cases, the factors for timeliness are: (1) lack of diligence in discovering the facts or in offering the amendment after knowledge of them; and (2) the effect of the delay on the adverse party. If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend. (Hirsa v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

CHAN WOO JANG VS YOUNG C OH, ET AL.

A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. (CCP § 418.10(a)(1).) A summons may be served by personal delivery of a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served. (CCP § 415.10.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CHAN WOO JANG VS YOUNG C OH, ET AL.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff not only failed to meet and confer in good faith, but that Defendant has already provided sufficient responses to Plaintiff’s requests. Legal Standard Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to document requests if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ILAN BITTON VS TYLER THORNTON, ET AL.

Applicants are residents of Illinois, are members in good standing in the State of Illinois and has been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court, State of Illinois. (Letts Application, ¶¶ 2-4; May Application, ¶¶ 2-4.) Applicants have not appeared pro hac vice in California in the past two years. (Letts Application, ¶ 5; May Application, ¶ 5.) The applications also provide that the $50 fees required to be admitted pro hac vice will be promptly paid to the State Bar of California via AIMS.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

BRIDA LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

On September 11, 2019, Plaintiff Brida, LLC (Plaintiff) filed suit against Travelers Casualty Insurance company of America dba Travelers (Defendant) alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) declaratory relief. Legal Standard Motions to strike are used to reach defects or objections to pleadings that are not challengeable by demurrer, such as words, phrases, and prayers for damages. (See Code Civ Proc., §§ 435-437.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

RIDGE CONLAN, ET AL. VS ROCKIN' RESCUE, ET AL.

BACKGROUND: Plaintiffs Ridge Conlan, his wife, Lori Conlan, and their daughter, Samantha Conlan commenced this action against Rockin’ Rescue, AGWC Rockin’ Rescue, and Ady Gil (“Defendants”) on April 4, 2019 for (1) fraud; (2) fraud – intentional misrepresentation; (3) fraud – negligent misrepresentation; (4) breach of duty of honesty and fair dealing and good faith; (5) negligence; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (7) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MUCINO VS. KIM

Rule 316 E states that “The failure of any person to prepare reasonably for, appear at, or participate in good faith in a settlement conference as required by this rule is an unlawful interference with the proceedings of the court, and the court may order the person at fault to pay the opposing party’s reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

JAMES DOMINIC FRAIN, ET AL. VS JESSICA ALEXANDER CULOTTI, ET AL.

However, the Court finds that Claimant’s attendance is not required due to Claimant’s age and the settlement amount. DISCUSSION The Court has reviewed the petitions and find the settlement amounts to be fair and reasonable. However, the Court has found the following defects. First, Petitioner has failed to provide written confirmations from Jochen Chiropractic and Wellness Center confirming its agreement to accept reduced amounts to satisfy the outstanding medical costs for each claimant.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO VS CALIFORNIA DEPT OF TRANSPO

In Opposition, Reinke argues that the settlement amount against Pliego, the City, and DOT (totaling $50,000), but that the lien should be “set by the Court at zero” because the costs and fees in obtaining the settlement are three times more than the settlement proceeds. (Oppo. at p. 2.) “[A]n employer has a right of reimbursement for workers’ compensation benefits it has paid or become obligated to pay when its employee recoups damages from a third party tortfeasor by way of judgment or settlement.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

JEFF REINKE VS ELMER ERNESTO LOPEZ PLIEGO ET AL

In Opposition, Reinke argues that the settlement amount against Pliego, the City, and DOT (totaling $50,000), but that the lien should be “set by the Court at zero” because the costs and fees in obtaining the settlement are three times more than the settlement proceeds. (Oppo. at p. 2.) “[A]n employer has a right of reimbursement for workers’ compensation benefits it has paid or become obligated to pay when its employee recoups damages from a third party tortfeasor by way of judgment or settlement.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

VAZGEN MIRZAKHANYAN VS JV & T CAPITAL LLC ET AL

“Implicit in the requirement that counsel contact the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance is a requirement that counsel listen to the reasons offered and make a good faith attempt to resolve the issue,” including by rescheduling. (Leko v. Cornerstone Bldg. Inspection Serv. (2001) 86 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1124.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ANDREW MAHONEY VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Such leave may be granted only upon a showing of “good cause.” (Id.) Discussion Defendant moves for an order compelling the physical neurological examination of Plaintiff. Procedural Requirements The motion shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2032.310(b).) The motion must also specify the identity and specialty of the person who will be performing the examination. (Id.) A meet and confer declaration must also accompany the motion.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SAMUEL BLUMBERG VS KOB REMODELING, INC.

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) false promise. Moving Defendant filed a motion to strike portions of the complaint. Moving Defendant seeks to strike: (1) Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages; (2) Plaintiff’s prayer for attorney’s fees; and (3) Plaintiff’s prayer for statutory damages and injunctive relief.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.