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

HANOKH GOLSHIRAZIAN, ET AL., VS NICK CONSTRUCTION & DEV. INC

Proc., § 877.6(b).) “The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6(d).) “A motion or application for determination of good faith settlement may include a request to dismiss a pleading or a portion of a pleading. The notice of motion or application for determination of good faith settlement must list each party and pleading or portion of pleading affected by the settlement and the date on which the affected pleading was filed.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

JOSEFINA ROBLES VS ST FRANCIS MEDICAL CENTER ET AL

Determination of good faith Standard Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6(b) allows a party to request determination by the court that a settlement was made in good faith. A determination of good faith bars “joint tortfeasors or co-obligors from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” (C.C.P., § 877.6(c).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GARY MCKENZIE VS ANTHONY BUSTAMANTE ET AL

Mediplex involved a settlor who filed an application for determination of good faith under Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6(b). The motion was opposed by the defendant. The settling defendant and plaintiff refused to divulge the terms of the settlement agreement, instead opting to provide the objecting defendant with “essential terms.” (Id. at 750.) Mediplex involved a motion for determination of good faith, and it was within this context that the court determined the settlement details must be divulged.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANCIRA MATEO, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM YOLANDA FRIAS VS ST. FRANCIS MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.

Motion for determination of good faith Standard Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6(b) allows a party to request determination by the court that a settlement was made in good faith. A determination of good faith bars “joint tortfeasors or co-obligors from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” (C.C.P., § 877.6(c).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SHARON OSBERG VS. SCHERMCO, INC., ET AL

. §877.6:) After considering the factors set out in Tech-Bill, Inc: v. Woodward-Clyde & Assocs. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, the court finds that the amount of the proposed settlement is within the “reasonable range” of the settling defendants” comparative liability. The court therefore determines that the settlement qualifies as a good faith settlement within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 877.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

JONES VS. BZDAWKA

Proc. § 877.6.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

JOHN RODRIGUEZ VS CITY OF IRWINDALE ET AL

Defendant Irwindale (“Defendant”) moves for good faith determination of its settlement with Plaintiff pursuant to CCP § 877.6. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, in an action in which two or more parties are alleged to be joint-tortfeasors, they are entitled to a hearing concerning the good faith issue of a settlement.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

BEHNAZ BABAKNIA VS ROCKCREATION INC

. §877.6(a)(1). A determination that the settlement was in good faith bars any joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor for equitable contribution or indemnity. Id. at (c).

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

PAULA DOROTHY THOMAS VS MARCIA DALEY

CONTESTING GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT DETERMINATION 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

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

TAAT VS. FAZELI

Proc., § 877.6, subds. (a)-(d).) The intent and policies underlying section 877.6 require that a number of factors be taken into account. (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499, internal citations omitted.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

EVAN PIERCE VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS), A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

Proc., § 877.6(b).) “The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6(d).) ANALYSIS On February 25, 2020, Cross-Defendant Jane Kiely Davis filed a motion for determination of good faith settlement. The original motion contained only three exhibits. Davis refiled the motion on June 22, 2020 and the refiled motion contained six exhibits. The Court considers the June 22, 2020 motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

ADAM GRAFF AND MAXIM PEVZMER, ET AL

Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 provides that a good faith settlement bars other joint tortfeasors from any further claims of indemnity or contribution against the settling tortfeasor.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

LETICIA HERNANDEZ, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, LETICIA VELAZQUEZ LOPEZ VS LIANA H. UA, ET AL.

“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 499-500.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

EFD USA INC ET AL VS BAND PRO FILM AND DIGITAL INC ET AL

First Option moves the Court for an order determining that the settlement entered into by and between EDF and Teran, and First Option has been made in good faith pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) sections 877 and 877.6.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

KALENACK VS COUNTY OF VENTURA

Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).) "[I]n moving under section 877.6 for a good faith settlement determination, the moving party must set forth the value of the consideration paid and an evidentiary basis for that valuation, and must demonstrate that the valuation 'was reached in a sufficiently adversarial manner to justify the presumption that a reasonable valuation was reached.' [Citations.]

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

UOXINA SANTOS-AGUIRRE VS CHRISTINE AGUIRRE ET AL.

Defendants Glenn and Kathleen Nelson’s Unopposed Motion to Determine Good Faith of Settlement is GRANTED. Jayne C. Lee Judge of the Superior Court Directions for Contesting or Arguing the Tentative Ruling: Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

MICHAEL REACH VS JOHN SPAHI, ET AL.,

Defendant Orlando filed an opposition claiming prejudice due to (1) the loss of his right to file a x-complaint against Peter Alevizos and Sheldon Stein due to the Court’s approval of their good faith settlement on 2-28-20 per CCP §877.6(c) and (2) the loss of his right to seek arbitration due to relation back of the 6th Amended Complaint to the 5th Amended Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BURAN CHANTHRON VS PASADENA AREA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, ET AL.

Proc. 877.6, subd. (d); City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1261-1262; Tech-Bilt Inc. v. Woodward Clyde Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 501.) The District has provided no evidence whatsoever to support the conclusion that Defendant Goody Products, Inc. (“Goody”) has any liability at all for the incident at issue here, and thus the District has not met its burden in showing that the settlement is not in good faith.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TONYA BATES WILSON VS TIONG SAN LIEM ET AL

The Court approves the settlement pursuant to section 877.6(a)(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and thereby determines that the settlement was in good faith. The Court’s determination 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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6(c).) Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT VS. SABIC INNOVATIVE PLASTICS US, LLC

MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT DETERMINATION The Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement brought by Defendant Unisys Corporation is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 877.6. The Court finds the settlement entered into between Defendant Unisys Corporation and Plaintiff Orange County Water District was made in good faith. The Court further finds the remaining non-settling defendants are entitled to an offset in the amount of $1,058,900. (CCP §877(a)).

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

BONNER VS. SPARGO

Motion for Good Faith Settlement with Lamar Jackson Pursuant to CCP § 877.6, Defendant Spargo moves for a determination of good faith settlement with Plaintiff Lamar Jackson. Lamar Jackson made an initial demand of $800,000. After negotiations with offers and counter demands, Mr. Jackson agreed to a compromise of $400,000. The settlement includes a general release under CCP § 1542, a dismissal of his claims against Richard Spargo, with each party bearing their own costs and fees.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

HILL VS POLARIS INDUSTRIES INC

CCP § 877.6(c). However, a good faith determination would not bar a cause of action for express indemnity. C. L. Peck Contractors v. Superior Court (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 828, 834 ["an indemnity claim against a codefendant based on express contract survives a good faith section 877.6 settlement"].

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

GERFIN VS JOSEPH FINANCIAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS LLC

The Court can only determine that the settlement is in good faith within the meaning of CCP 877.6 and pursuant to section (c), claims for equitable indemnity are barred. To the extent the cross-complaint seeks express indemnity, such a claim is not barred under a finding of CCP 877.6(c). To challenge this cause of action requires a properly noticed summary judgment/adjudication motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HILL VS POLARIS INDUSTRIES INC

CCP §877.6.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

GERFIN VS JOSEPH FINANCIAL INVESTMENT ADVISORS LLC

The Court can only determine that the settlement is in good faith within the meaning of CCP 877.6 and pursuant to section (c), claims for equitable indemnity are barred. To the extent the cross-complaint seeks express indemnity, such a claim is not barred under a finding of CCP 877.6(c). To challenge this cause of action requires a properly noticed summary judgment/adjudication motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 84     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.