A motion to offset “assures that a plaintiff will not be enriched unjustly by a double recovery, collecting part of his total claim from one joint tortfeasor and all of his claim from another.” (Reed v. Wilson (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 439, 444.)
A settlement with a joint tortfeasor or co-obligor provides the remaining defendants with an offset against the plaintiff’s award in the amount specified or the amount of the consideration, whichever is more. (Engle v. Endlich (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1163.) The nonsettling tortfeasors are entitled to an offset for the full amount of the settlement, rather than by an amount measured by the settling tortfeasor’s proportionate responsibility for the injury. (Erreca’s v. Super. Ct. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1489.)
In accordance with Section 877 of the Code of Civil Procedure, “[w]here a release, dismissal with or without prejudice, or a covenant not to sue or not to enforce judgment is given in good faith before verdict or judgment to one or more of a number of tortfeasors claimed to be liable for the same tort... it shall not discharge any other such party from liability unless its terms so provide, but it shall reduce the claims against the others in the amount stipulated by the release, the dismissal or the covenant, or in the amount of the consideration paid for it, whichever is the greater.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 877(a).)
“[T]he idea of a ‘double recovery’ is inextricably linked to the joint liability of multiple tortfeasors. When multiple defendants are responsible for the same compensatory damages, a setoff is not only mandated under section 877(a), but is required by the fundamental principle that ‘... a plaintiff may not recover in excess of the amount of damages which will fully compensate him for his injury.’” (Hoch v. Allied–Signal, Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 48, 67 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 615].)
Section 877 has been construed to apply “even more generally to ‘all tortfeasors joined in a single action’ whose acts or omissions ‘concurred to produce the sum total of the injuries to the plaintiff.’” (Gackstetter v. Frawley (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 1272, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 333.)
As the California Supreme Court stated in Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 216 Cal.Rptr. 443, 702 P.2d 601, “the language of section 877 is significant—its drafters did not use the narrow term ‘joint tortfeasors,’ they used the broad term ‘tortfeasors claimed to be liable for the same tort.’ This language was meant to eliminate the distinction between joint tortfeasors and concurrent or successive tortfeasors, and to permit broad application of the statute.” (Id. at p. 302 [216 Cal.Rptr. 443, 702 P.2d 601]; Gackstetter v. Frawley (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1257, 1272, fn. 12 [38 Cal.Rptr.3d 333].)
Offsets are routinely allowed in actions to enforce a money judgment. (Brienza v. Tepper (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1847; Margott v. Gem Properties, Inc. (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 849, 854.) It is “proper to exclude evidence of the pretrial settlement by one joint tortfeasor from the jury's consideration, leaving it to the court to apply Code of Civil Procedure section 877 to reduce the verdict.” (Knox v. County of Los Angeles (“Knox”) (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 825, 834–35.)
The burden of establishing the value of a settlement is properly placed on plaintiffs. (Garcia v. Duro Dyne Corp. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 92, 106.) “[T]he amount of the setoff is, in the absence of a stipulation, ‘the amount of the consideration paid for [the release or dismissal].’ But the amount of consideration paid within the meaning of section 877, subdivision (a) is not necessarily the amount of money paid. Often ‘the amount of the offset is clouded by injection of noncash consideration into the settlement.’ ‘In a situation where the cash amount of the settlement does not dictate the amount of the offset, the settling parties must include an allocation or a valuation in their agreement.’” (Franklin Mint Co. v. Super. Ct. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1557.)
“[I]n order to obtain the benefit of an allocation of the amount of a settlement, the plaintiff is required to make ‘an evidentiary showing... to justify such allocation.’‘ The statutory requirement of good faith extends not only to the amount of the overall settlement but as well to any allocation which operates to exclude any portion of the settlement from the setoff.’ Where there is a complete dismissal of a defendant, and a plaintiff seeks an allocation of the settlement with that defendant for purposes of limiting the setoff against another defendant's liability, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish facts to justify the allocation.” (Ehret v. Congoleum Corp. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1321–1322.)
Courts are not required to grant an offset for anticipated future recovery. (Hellam v. Crane Co. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 851, 873.)
Gail Hollander, et al. v. XL Capital Ltd. MOTION FOR AN ORDER ADDING INTEREST TO THE AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE JURY IN THE JUDGMENT; MOTION FOR AN OFFSET OF THE $250,000 SETTLEMENT PLAINTIFFS RECEIVED FROM DEFENDANT LA PACKING AND FOR A DETERMINATION THAT XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE IS THE “PREVAILING PARTY” FOR COSTS MOVING PARTY: (1) Plaintiff Gail Hollander, individually and in her representative cap...
..ger Paintings while installing the artwork at their newly remodeled home. Attempts to restore the paintings did not bring them back to their pre-damage condition, and their market value was less than the insured value. Plaintiffs and their insurer disagreed on the valuation process. Once Plaintiffs had the painting sold at auction, Defendant refused to pay the difference between the policy benefit...
Defendant Ben Safyari’s Motion to Determine Offset is GRANTED. The court grants an offset totaling $281,250, representing $100,000 in attorneys’ fees, $96,250 from the monthly payments, and $85,000 guaranteed value from the $170,000 loan to Klein for his personal benefit. I. IS SAFYARI ENTITLED TO AN OFFSET? “Where a release, dismissal with or without prejudice, or a covenant not to sue or not...
..others in the amount stipulated by the release, the dismissal or the covenant, or in the amount of the consideration paid for it, whichever is the greater.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.) “[t]he offset provided for in section 877 assures that a plaintiff will not be enriched unjustly by a double recovery, collecting part of his total claim from one joint tortfeasor and all of his claim from another....
The court addresses the evidentiary issues. Defendant San Diego Gas & Electric Company's evidentiary objections are overruled. The court then rules as follows. Defendant San Diego Gas & Electric Company's motion for offset is granted. As against SDG&E the complaint alleges four causes of action for violation of Labor Code § 1050, remedies under Labor Code § 2699, interference with contractual re...
..ions and interference with prospective economic advantage causes of action and awarded $119,343 for past economic loss (past lost earnings) and $64,507 for future economic loss (future lost earnings) for a total of $183,850.00. Relying on CCP § 877, SDG&E seeks an offset in the amount of $75,000 based on NV5's pre-trial settlement with Plaintiff. Under CCP § 877, [w]here a release, dismissal wit...
I. MOTION FOR OFFSET “Where a release, dismissal with or without prejudice, or a covenant not to sue or not to enforce judgment is given in good faith before verdict or judgment to one or more of a number of tortfeasors claimed to be liable for the same tort, or to one or more other co-obligors mutually subject to contribution rights, it shall have the following effect: (a) It shall not discharge...
..ecovery, collecting part of his total claim from one joint tortfeasor and all of his claim from another.” (Reed v. Wilson (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 439, 444.) It is “proper to exclude evidence of the pretrial settlement by one joint tortfeasor from the jury's consideration, leaving it to the court to apply Code of Civil Procedure section 877 to reduce the verdict.” (Knox v. County of Los Angeles (“Kn...
Notice Of Motion And Motion (1) To Compel Compliance With Demand For Acknowledgment Of Satisfaction Of Judgment Or, In The Alternative, (2) To Offset Judgments, And (3) To Recall And Quash Writ Of Execution Matter on Calendar for Thursday, November 12, 2015, Line 13. RESPONDENTS MICHELE ARMANINO, LALANNE LLC'S Motion (1) To Compel Compliance With Demand For Acknowledgment Of Satisfaction Of Judgm...
..se. Accordingly, the court finds that petitioner's judgment has been satisfied. The Court of Appeal did not directly resolve this offset issue and petitioner fails to distinguish respondent's authorities. "[E]quitable offset is a means by which a debtor may satisfy in whole or in part a judgment or claim held against him out of a judgment or claim which he has subsequently acquired against...
Yoram Yehuda dba Malibu Development and Construction v. Arturo Rubinstein, et al. MOTION TO OFFSET JUDGMENT MOVING PARTY: Defendants Arturo Rubinstein and Fab Rock Investments, LLC RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Yoram Yehuda dba Malibu Development and Construction STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiff alleged that he was entitled to reimbursement of his capital contributio...
..GRANTED. The entire judgment of $1,193,735.68 as of the date of this Order is offset by Defendants’ larger judgment against Plaintiff in the Florida district court action. Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to have the entire judgment in this action extinguished, in exchange for a reduction of $1,193,735.68 from the judgment Defendants maintain against Plaintiff. Pursuant to CCP § 724.050(d), t...
1-11 of 11 results
(1) MOTION TO OFFSET JUDGMENT; (2) THIRD-PARTY PARVIZ FAKHERI aka PARIS FAKHERI’S MOTION TO OFFSET JUDGMENT STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiff alleged that he was entitled to reimbursement of his capital contributions pursuant to an oral joint venture agreement by Defendants pertaining to the flipping of real property after the property had been sold for a profit. Defendants Arturo Rubenstein and Fab Rock Investments move to offset the judgment.
Los Angeles County, CA
DISCUSSION: Motion To Offset Judgment Requests for Judicial Notice Defendants request judicial notice of (A) the judgment in this action, entered March 11, 2019; (B) a minute order entered in this action on July 1, 2019; (C) a stipulation and order re: costs entered in this action on July 12, 2019; (D) the final judgment entered in Rubenstein v.
Los Angeles County, CA
In that order, the New York Civil Court states: Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision/Order defendant's motion to offset and reduce the judgment in this action, is as follows: Plaintiff holds a judgment in this action against defendant in the principal sum of $13,575.00. Defendant alleges that she holds a judgment against plaintiff in the principal amount of $11,140.00, arising out of Andrino Koljevina v.
San Diego County, CA
s motion to offset any costs that might be awarded in favor of defendant Scott Smith against its lien is denied. Per Margott v. Gem Properties, Inc. (1973) 34 Cal. App. 3d 849, 856 and CCP 708.470(a), the court exercises its discretion to require Entrepreneur Media to pay the full amount of the costs awarded to Mr. Scott directly to him rather than as an offset against the debt Mr. Smith owes to it.
Notice Of Motion And Motion To Offset Any Costs That The Court Might Award In Favor Of Scott Smith To And Against, To The Extent Awarded, The Judgment In Favor Of Entrepreneur Media, Inc.
S Motion To Offset Any Costs That The Court Might Award In Favor Of Scott Smith To And Against, To The Extent Awarded, The Judgment In Favor Of Entrepreneur Media, Inc. Entered In The Usdc Cd Cal., And Application Of Any Possible Cost Award As An Offset Against Emis Lien Under Ccp Section 708.470(A); And Stay Of Enforcement Under The Cost Award Under Ccp Section 708.440(A). Plaintiff Entrepreneur Media, Inc.'s motion to offset any costs that the court might award is granted.
State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (34-2012-00137019) Motion to Offset Damages Defendant State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's ("CDCR") Motion to Offset Damages is GRANTED. CDCR moves to offset Plaintiff Onalis Giunta's ("Plaintiff") economic damages by $34,690, which is the amount of her worker's compensation award.
Sacramento County, CA
MOTION Notice Of Motion Of Motion To Offset Cross-Judgments CROSS COMPLAINANT GUY SEATON; MOTION To Offset Cross-Judgments HEARING REQUIRED (302/REQ/RS)
San Francisco County, CA
MOTION Notice Of Motion Of Motion To Offset Cross-Judgments COURT APPLIES OUTSTANDING AMOUNT OF $115,324.56 OF $570,000.00 AGAINST SEATON JUDGMENT OF $219,503.20. $104,179 IS THEN DEDUCTED FROM $320,088.00 LEAVING BALANCE OWING BY SEATON TO RUNEZ OF $215,909.00. (302/AJR/RS)
MOTION Notice Of Motion Of Motion To Offset Cross-Judgments CONTINUED TO 11/26: MOVING PARTY TO LODGE COURTESY COPIES PER LOCAL RULE 8.5. PLEASE ATTACH COVER LETTER CONFIRMING NEW HEARING DATE. (302/AJR/ju)
MOTION Motion To Offset Cross-Judgments MOTION TO OFFSET CROSS-JUDGMENTS DENIED. AMOUNTS CLAIMED TO BE OFFSET NOT ESTABLISHED. (302/AJR/AA)
Please wait a moment while we load this page.