What is a Motion to Determine Good Faith Settlement?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Determine Good Faith Settlement

Recent Rulings on Motion to Determine Good Faith Settlement

GLENDALE FRENCH BAKERY, INC. VS. RICK SALVATORE, ET AL

DISCUSSION: Standard of Review – Good Faith Settlement – Under Code of Civil Procedure §877.6, “[a]ny party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors . . . 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 tortfeasor or co-obligors.” Code of Civ. Proc. §877.6(a).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

BONNIE LEIGH GREGORY VS. STEVEN MICHAEL SHANE

"A determination as to the good faith of a settlement, within the meaning of section 877.6, necessarily requires the trial court to examine and weigh a number of relevant factors, [fn. Omitted] one of the most important of which is the settling party's proportionate liability." (Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 864, 871).

  • Hearing

MOHAMMAD MEHDI-MOLLANOURI SHAMSI VS SUSAN GANS, ET AL.

Proc., § 877.6, subd. (c).) Although a determination that a settlement was in good faith does not discharge any other party from liability, “it shall reduce the claims against the others in the amount stipulated” by the settlement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877, subd. (a).) “The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).) In City of Grand View Terrace v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BUSH VS KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS

CCP §877.6.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

RONALD J BILLS TRUSTEE OF THE RONALD J BILLS REVOCABLE TRUST DATED MAY 1 2008 VS GARY J FRANKHAUSER

BILLS REVOCABLE TRUST DATED MAY 1, 2008 ("PLAINTIFF") on the one hand and REDLINE on the other, was made in good faith under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, is GRANTED. This determination bars any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling parties for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity based on comparative negligence or comparative fault. Code Civ. Pro. 877.6(c).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

TONY TUONG, ET AL. VS VANESSA CRISTINE GONZALEZ

“The party asserting the lack of good faith, who has the burden of proof on that issue (§ 877.6, subd. (d)), 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. Such a demonstration would establish that the proposed settlement was not a ‘settlement made in good faith’ within the terms of section 877.6.” (Id. at pp. 499-500.)

  • Hearing

BEL-AIR ASSOCIATION VS HOLDING COMPANY OF BEVERLY HILLS, LLC

. §877.6(a)(1) A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor for equitable contribution or indemnity. Id. at subd. (C). To make this determination, the court analyzes the factors set out in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 493-494.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SVETLANA KRAVCHENKO, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS PERLA LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Discussion GOOD-FAITH SETTLEMENT Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6(a)(1) provides: Any party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt 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 or co-obligors, upon giving notice in the manner provided in subdivision (b) of Section 1005.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

VILMA FIGUEROA, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS G & D MANAGEMENT & APARTMENT BUILDING L.,, ET AL.

., § 877.6(a), (b)-(d).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

KPS ALARMS VS SMITH

Martinez failed to meet his burden showing that the proposed settlement is not in good faith or that the settlement is “out of the ballpark” as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of CCP § 877.6.

  • Hearing

RANDALL VS. MANOR ON THE VINE, LLC

The court finds that Livemore’s settlement not to be made in good faith for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6. Livemore has not presented sufficient admissible evidence to establish a good faith settlement, and YG has presented sufficient evidence to contest that the settlement was made in good faith. Defendant YG to give notice.

  • Hearing

VELOCITY SERVICES,INC. VS ALVIDREZ

The Court GRANTS the Motion of Defendant Central Escrow Group, Inc. for a determination that the settlement Defendant reached with the Plaintiff is in good faith under the standards of CCP § 877.6. Defendant is to prepare a proposed order and give notice.

  • Hearing

ENGEL VS MEDINA

(CCP §877.6(d); Tech-Bilt, supra.) “Whether pursuant to the advice of a referee or based on the court's unaided review of the motion, the determination whether the settlement was in good faith must be based on competent, admissible evidence.” (Brehm Communities. v. Superior Court (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 730, 736.)

  • Hearing

LUCIO GONZALEZ BAHENA VS PRIORITYWORKFORCE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

CCP section 877.6 governs the procedure for determining whether a settlement was made in good faith. That statute provides in pertinent part: (a)(2) In the alternative, a settling party may give notice of settlement to all parties and to the court, together with an application for determination of good faith settlement and a proposed order. The application shall indicate the settling parties, and the basis, terms, and amount of the settlement.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DANIEL GARCIA VS BRUNTON ENTERPRISES INC

(Alternatively, there is no determination of good faith settlement or a CCP § 877.6(c) determination.) Thus, Bigge may still have cross-claims against Plas-Tal even if Plaintiff no longer has direct claims against Plas-Tal. This argument does not raise a triable issue of material fact nor is it a basis to deny the motion.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INS. CO. VS. NVSI, INC.

The court concludes that the settlement was made in good faith within the meaning of CCP §877.6 because it satisfied the weight of the factors set forth in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 488, 499.

  • Hearing

JOSE BEJAR VS. GEA WESTFALIA SEPARATOR INC

CCP § 877.6(c). The party asserting a lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue. CCP § 877.6(d). The court cannot determine whether the settlement is in the ballpark if there is no evidence on where the ballpark is. If "there is no substantial evidence to support a critical assumption as to the nature and extent of a settling defendant's liability, then a determination of good faith based upon such assumption is an abuse of discretion." Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

SVETLANA KRAVCHENKO, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS PERLA LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Discussion GOOD-FAITH SETTLEMENT Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6(a)(1) provides: Any party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt 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 or co-obligors, upon giving notice in the manner provided in subdivision (b) of Section 1005.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DEBRA MARKS ET AL VS LAURIE GOUETT ET AL

Proc. § 877.6, subd. (c).) Although a determination that a settlement was in good faith does not discharge any other party from liability, “it shall reduce the claims against the others in the amount stipulated” by the settlement. (Code Civ. Proc. § 877, subd. (a).) “The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6, subd. (d).) In City of Grand View Terrace v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Discussion GOOD-FAITH SETTLEMENT Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6(a)(1) provides: Any party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt 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 or co-obligors, upon giving notice in the manner provided in subdivision (b) of Section 1005.

  • Hearing

CAROLYN THOMAS VS MARQUEZ PRODUCE, ET AL.

The party asserting the lack of good faith, who has the burden of proof on that issue (§877.6(d)), 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. Such a demonstration would establish that the proposed settlement was not a ‘settlement made in good faith’ within the terms of section 877.6. (Tech-Bilt, Inc., 38 Cal.3d at 499-500.)

  • Hearing

OSADCHE V. SCALLY

. § 877.6(a)(1); Cal. R. Ct. Rule 3.1382.) The Court also finds the settlement terms are well within the “reasonable range” of Defendants’ potential share of liability for Plaintiff’s injuries. (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.) Such terms include: a payment of $72,500; release of Plaintiff’s mechanic’s lien against Defendants’ real property; an assignment of Plaintiff’s rights against the seller; and, dismissal of Defendants from Plaintiff’s complaint.

  • Hearing

ANDRANIK AMAZASPYAN VS AIDA BAHARIAN TRUST ET AL

If the settlement is approved pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, the motion for summary judgment will be moot. The court will not hear argument or rule on a motion for summary judgment after a settlement is reached and while an application for a good faith determination is pending. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LIBERTY SURPLUS INSURANCE CORPORATION VS LTD CONSTRUCTION

Proc., § 877.6.) Philadelphia stretches the meaning of “co-obligors on a contract debt” beyond recognition and ignores the applicable law. Philadelphia argues that section 877.6 applies because Liberty and Philadelphia are each obligated to Walton and Berendos.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HAYWOOD VS. CITY OF IRVINE

., § 877.6 (c) provides that “A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” The ruling on the Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement may affect the ruling on the Demurrer. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 87     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.