Motion to Offset in California

[Tentative] Order RE: defendants motion to offset prior attorneys fees award MOVING PARTY: Defendant Donald J. Trump RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed Motion to Offset Prior Attorneys Fees Award The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion. No opposition papers were filed. DISCUSSION Defendant Donald J.

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.

Equitable considerations make it appropriate to offset these awards such that any amount owed to Royston is simply credited to the larger award owed to Bhola. Accordingly, Defendants Motion for an Offset is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to give notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 18, 2024 ___________________________________ Randolph M.

(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.

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 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)

Currently before the court are defendants motion for an offset and motion to tax costs. Both are opposed. This matter previously came on before the court on December 22, 2022. (12/22/22 MO.) At that point, the court agreed that an offset for collateral source payments was appropriate but noted it could not determine the amount without additional evidence. The court also largely ruled on the motion to tax costs.

McKinney II The hearing on Plaintiff's motion to offset the settlement agreement is CONTINUED to September 28, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 15. The registry of actions reflects that an opposition was filed on September 7, 2021. The hearing on the motion is continued to provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file reply to the opposition. The parties are reminded that they must provide the court with courtesy copies and are asked to email the documents to Dept15@alameda.courts.ca.gov.

Defendants now move to offset the judgment. TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Arturo Rubenstein and Fab Rock Investments, LLC’s motion to offset judgment is 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.

PLT Amir Gnessin Engineering Inc; PLT Amir Gnessin Motion - Other (Motion for Equitable Offset and to Amend existing Judgment) The motion of Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants Gnessin and Amir Gnessin Engineering, Inc. (together “Gnessin”) for equitable offset of judgment amounts owed as between Gnessin and defendant/cross-complainant DC Partners, Inc. is granted. Plaintiffs are to submit a proposed amended judgment.

Defendant’s motion for a determination that it is the “prevailing party” for costs is DENIED without prejudice to renew the motion without relying on the success of its offset arguments.

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.

Defendant’s motion for a determination that it is the “prevailing party” for costs is DENIED without prejudice to renew the motion without relying on the success of its offset arguments.

Based on the foregoing, Defendants motion for an offset is granted. It is so ordered. Dated: December , 2022 Hon. Jon R.

Case Number: BC498733 Hearing Date: January 21, 2021 Dept: 61 Defendant Ben Safyari’s Motion for Additional Offset is GRANTED in part.

Case Number: 19SMCV00057 Hearing Date: December 22, 2022 Dept: R The hearings today are to resolve defendants motion for an offset and a motion to tax costs. Both are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART Government Code section 985 allows public entities to reduce a judgment by way of offset under certain circumstances.

Defendant Ben Safyari’s Motion for Additional Offset is DENIED.

Now pending before the court are the following two motions filed by the parties: (1) the motion to offset damages, filed by Defendant on August 25, 2023, and (2) the motion for new trial, filed by Plaintiffs on September 18, 2023. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR OFFSET OF DAMAGES Defendant moves the court for an order (1) offsetting the jury award of $23,276.13 by $11,544.46, which represents the insurance proceeds received by Plaintiffs, and (2) entering judgment in the modified amount of $11,732.67.

.: 22SMCV02679 MOTION: Motion for New Trial/Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict Motion to Offset the Judgment HEARING DATE: 4/17/2026 Legal Standard New Trial A motion for new trial is a creature of statute; . . . ( Neal v. Montgomery Elevator Co. ¿(1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1194, 1198.) A movant must satisfy CCP sections 657 and 659.

· The Motion cites no case where an offset was ordered where one obligation was not contained in any judgment. · The Clerk has not added a cost award to the judgment under CRC rule 8.278(b)(1). The law further requires Max to take additional steps such as filing a motion to pursue separate action to obtain an offset. · Max did not request an offset from any court.

HELD: Plaintiffs Motion for Offset/Setoff is GRANTED ; and as such, n Ds judgment for $1,000 in attorneys fees in 24SMUD00165 is deemed satisfied in full; n Ps judgment for $35,000 in the case at bar is hereby deemed partially satisfied by the amount of the $1,000 offset, thereby leaving a balance of $34,000 yet to be satisfied.

Conversely, Defendants state that a $70,000 offset, $85,000 minus the $15,000 paid to Shir, should be applied on July 14, 2015, when the vehicles were sold to Amirianfar. Applying the offset at said time would reduce the outstanding balance and consequently the interest accrued. Defendants’ motion is denied. Defendants cite to McConnell v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins.

Cano argues the cross-complaint against Maximum cannot be dismissed without receiving an offset against Canos liability. Canos opposition demands a $100,000,000 offset. See Opp. 5:13. While Cano is entitled to an offset against potential liability, such offset is limited to the settlement amount. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §877(a). The court declines to order a $100,000,000 offset; Cano is entitled only to a $1,000,000 offset. The tentative is the order of the court. See Min. Order 5/5/25.

As for Plaintiffs request that Defendants costs be offset by $1,976.32 for costs that Defendants counsel agreed to pay, the Court will grant this request. Defendants should have paid the costs to Plaintiff. The Court grants Plaintiffs motion to tax costs. Order 1. Plaintiff Malissa Whites motion to tax costs is granted. 2. Defendants costs claimed for court reporters and transcripts is stricken in the amount of $18,778.28. 3.

River Ridge suggests in its papers that the offset claim is valid, so why is there no stipulation to enter a Judgment that reflects the arbitration award and the offset? The arbitration award accrues interest by operation of law, but presumably the McLeod offset claim also does, so arguably no harm, no foul.

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?

CONCLUSION For these reasons, the motion is denied. The Court also treats the opposition as a motion in limine to exclude this evidence from the attorneys fees phase of trial as irrelevant and grants that motion. [1] Former Trustees also contend, however, that technically it would be the burden of beneficiary Alexander Hughes (Beneficiary) to exclude this evidence by way of a motion in limine.

On the merits, the Motion asserts that several of the filing costs claimed by Chen should not be recoverable as the related motions were denied. But costs incurred for filing them were still “reasonably necessary” to the litigation. As for the offset claim, Plaintiff asserts that any cost award to Chen should be offset by a $700 sanction previously imposed on Chen which was never paid. Chen states in response that there is no objection to that request. (Opp. p. 7.)

An equitable mortgage and offset are both equitable remedies to be decided by the court and not a jury. Plaintiff's counsel characterizes the offset claim as one based on speculation and guesswork. There are no evidentiary objections filed by either side. The triable issue of fact is not the basis for an equitable mortgage, but what it is worth. River Range's offset claim could exceed the value of the equitable mortgage, which has been valued at $175,000.00. The motion is denied.

Defendant Edward Czuker has brought a motion to determine the right to offset, the resolution of lien priority, and the issuance of an order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 708.470. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 431.70, the Court finds that Czuker has established a valid right to offset based on a $1,530,000.00 money judgment entered against Plaintiff Derek Jones in 2015 and renewed in 2024.

Leiter Motion for Offset of Jury Award and to Address 998 Offer Moving Party : Defendants BC Design and Development, Inc. and Bradley Alan Couch Responding Party : Plaintiffs Derrick R. Upchurch and Sari M. Upchurch T/R : DEFENDANTS MOTION IS CONTINED TO MAY 20, 2026 AT 9:00AM. THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING, NO LONGER THAN 5 PAGES EXCLUDING EVIDENCE, ON THE ISSUE OF ALLOCATION NO LATER THAN MAY 13, 2026. DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

Therefore the full settlement by one defendant will offset a judgment against other tortfeasors; no allocation of the settlement is required.But many lawsuits and many settlements do not fit this pattern. In some, the amount of the offset is uncertain because one settlement covers multiple plaintiffs or causes of action with different damages...."

The motion of the plaintiff for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication of issues is DENIED. Procedural Basis for Denial The motion violates Rule 3.1350(b) of the California Rules of Court. On a motion for summary judgment, the Statement must tie each “undisputed material fact” to the particular claim, defense, or issue sought to be adjudicated. (See Truong v. Glasser (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 102, 118.) This motion overlooks that.

A defendant seeking an offset has the burden of proving the offset. Conrad v. Ball Corp. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4 th 439, 444. The Sisca defendants argue the award should be offset by $608,000, as well by $18,000 already paid by Finton toward the settlement, and future offsets as Finton makes monthly payments. Finally, Sisca argues that if the judgment is paid in full, it is worth $1,708,000, which would offset all damages against the Sisca defendants.

Because the Geetings request for an offset for additional fees and costs incurred in the quiet title action is not authorized by the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Geetings must seek to recover such costs under some extra-contractual theory. The Court cannot adjudicate independent tort claims in the context of a motion pursuant to §664.6.

.: 37-2019-00018398-CU-SL-CTL CASE TITLE: MABVAX THERAPEUTICS HOLDINGS INC VS HONING [E-FILE] CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Securities Litigation EVENT TYPE: Motion Hearing (Civil) CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Leave to Amend, 07/25/2023 Honig and Stetson Defendants' Motion for Leave to Amend Answer is GRANTED. (ROA 2007.) Defendants seek leave of court to amend their answer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint to assert one additional affirmative defense, for offset.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion for Offset.

With respect to the issue of offset, "a judgment debtor who has acquired a judgment or claim against his judgment creditor may ask the court in which the judgment against him was rendered to have his judgment or claim offset against the first judgment. The offset of judgment against judgment is a matter of right absent the existence of facts establishing competing equities or an equitable defense precluding the offset." (Brienza v. Tepper (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1847–1848.)

The Motion is denied. Conclusion Plaintiff Merritts Motion to Compel Arbitration is denied.

Plaintiff has not presented admissible evidence of disputed facts concerning aggravating factors that would make the offset non-trivial. Considering the circumstances of Plaintiff’s fall and the size and nature of the offset, the offset did not pose a substantial risk of injury to a pedestrian using due care. (Huckey, supra, 37 Cal.App.5th at p. 1110.) V. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Moving party to give notice.

Plaintiffs Motion and Reply rest on the argument that Defendant has not properly effectuated the waiver of the offset for vehicle use because the Related Case is pending against him for liability owed under the Lease Agreement for excessive mileage use.

Notice Of Motion To Tax Costs Set for hearing on Monday, July 25, 2011, line 11, PLAINTIFF TIMBERLY HUGHES, Motion To Tax Costs. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS IS DENIED. A JURY FEE DEPOSIT IS PROPERLY INCLUDED AS A COST OF A PREVAILING PARTY PER CCP SECTION 1033.5(a)(1). THERE IS NO AUTHORITY THAT FIRST REQUIRES A PARTY TO ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN A REFUND. THERE IS ALSO NO AUTHORITY PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO REQUEST AN OFFSET FOR FEES.

s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement 2)Defendants Dyer Business Associates, LP and Accurate Circuit Engineering, Inc.'s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement DYER BUSINESS ASSOCIATES AND ACCURATE CIRCUIT ENGINEERING, INC.’S MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT Defendants Dyer Business Associates (Dyer) and Accurate Circuit Engineering, Inc.’s (ACE) motion for good faith settlement is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 877.6.

With regard to any offset, the loan that is the subject of the offset was signed by Valentine Rutherford as an individual and he is not a plaintiff so no counterclaim for an offset can be made. 3. Demurrer to answer to complaint: Overrule. The fifth affirmative defense is not uncertain. The fifth affirmative defense is titled "equitable offset and credit-as to all causes of action."

With respect to Astro tile, plaintiffs agree that an offset of the entire settlement amount of $22,500.00 is appropriate, and the Court agrees. As to Madsen Kneppers, defendant seeks an offset of the entire settlement amount of $225,000.00, while plaintiffs concede an offset of only $19,350.00.

Defendant’s motion for protective order. Motion denied. First, the parties dispute the proper calculation of any mileage offset, and thus dispute whether MP has offered the “full statutory amount” of damages in settlement.

The offset credit is fundamentally not a finding of liability or judgment against Former Trusteesit is simply a component of the Tower Grove offset in Former Trustees favor. Arguments Against Offset Credit Theory Former Trustees offer limited argument against the offset credit theory, principally focusing on the appropriate amount of offset credit rather than the viability of the theory. ( See Response, pp. 25-26.)

Case Number: 21STCP01208 Hearing Date: April 19, 2022 Dept: 61 Petitioners James and Vickey Grays Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award is DENIED Respondent Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Co.s Motion to Correct Contractual Arbitration Award is GRANTED. Defendant to provide notice. I.

Defendant's Motion for Setoff/Offset pursuant to CCP 431.70 is denied. Defendant cites to no authority that would allow the Court to adjudicate the merits of Defendant's claim after entry of judgment. Not only is the request for offset untimely, even if it had been raised pre-judgment, this Court did not have jurisdiction to decide that issue. On Feb. 21, 2014, the Court ordered this matter to arbitration and stayed the instant action.

The Court has reviewed the declarations provided in connection with the instant Motion, and finds that the only two entries appear, on their face, to be unreasonable. First, counsel incurred 56 hours in connection with the instant Motion. This is totally unreasonable given the length and complexity of the Motion. The Court will award only 8 hours in connection with the instant Motion.

[of] the offset calculation.” (Wood Decl, Ex. 3.) Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 provides that “[a] meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040 [emphasis added].)

For general information regarding Judge DeNoce's rules and procedures for law and motion matters, ex parte matters, telephonic appearances, trial rules and procedures, etc., please visit: http://www.ventura.courts.ca.gov/Courtroom/C43 ______________________________________________ The court's tentative ruling is as follows: As to Defendant DCOR, LLC's Motion for Determination of Workers' Compensation Offset, the court finds that the appropriate workers' compensation offset amount is $19,454.29.

To the extent Defendants seek leave of Court to file a Cross-Complaint to assert an offset against Plaintiffs recovery under Code Civ. Proc. § 431.70, Defendants motion is DENIED as moot as Defendants have already asserted the right to such offset in their Answer.

[tentative] Order RE: (1) plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (2) defendants motion for reconsideration MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff and cross-defendant Madeline Moore RESPONDING PARTIES: Defendants Dennis P. Riley and Mesisca, Riley & Kreitenberg LLP (1) Motion for Reconsideration MOVING PARTIES: Defendants Dennis P.

Accordingly, Defendants motion is denied. C. Conclusion The Court denies the motion. The Court notes that Defendant argues that it is unnecessary to plead this defense as it is already implicitly included in the existing pleadings. The Court makes no ruling at this time regarding those arguments.

Motion for Summary Judgment: GRANTED Moving Party to submit proposed judgment and give notice.

The makes the total value of the settlement for offset purposes $1,686,612, which is the sum of $1.45 million plus $236,612.

Before this New York judgment can be offset against what is now a California judgment, that second New York judgment must also be entered as a sister-state judgment. Judgment Debtor's motion is thus denied without prejudice. Unless and until Judgment Debtor obtains a sister-state judgment based on her assigned judgment, this Court cannot offset that judgment against the judgment entered in this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. This ruling is the order of the Court, filed as of this date.

CONCLUSION Plaintiffs motion to vacate judgment is DENIED.

[W]hen a pretrial settlement does not differentiate between economic and noneconomic losses, a postverdict allocation is required because only the amount attributable to the joint responsibility for economic damages may be used as an offset. ( Ibid .) Plaintiffs argue there can be no offset as a matter of law and moreover, any offset has been waived.

Calvert et al., Case No. 21SMCV00399 Hearing Date September 30, 2021 Defendants’ Further Briefing re: Motion to Compel Responses to RFPs and Interrogatories Plaintiff brings this is action to enforce a 2020 Canadian judgment against her plastic surgeon defendant Calvert and his corporation, defendant Jay Calvert, M.D, APC. Defendants assert affirmative defenses of offset and equitable recoupment based on plaintiff’s alleged defamation in 2010.

For the foregoing reasons the Motion for Summary Judgment is respectfully denied.

.; BC675962, May 14, 2018 [Tentative] Order RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF MILEAGE DEDUCTION PURSUANT TO THE SONG-BEVERLY WARRANTY ACT Plaintiff JEFFREY GORDON’S Motion for Determination of Mileage Deduction Pursuant to the Song-Beverly Warranty Act is DENIED. The Court further orders that MBUSA is allowed an offset in the amount of $4,975.07.

Instead, they argue that there is an offset. However, Defendant fails to present sufficient evidence regarding the existence of the offset especially as to the amount of the offset. Therefore, TPP has failed to demonstrate a breach of the Settlement Agreement that would give rise to an identifiable offset. Further, the bankruptcy court ruled against TPP in the Adversary Proceeding on May 23, 2018.

It is difficult to imagine why any offset would result from that set of procedural facts. What occurred here is not meaningfully different. Nonetheless, Redig notes it would be more properly considered “in the context of a motion for attorney’s fees…” (Reply 4:22.) If Redig is concerned that the path to a full determination of this issue requires some additional post-judgment proceedings, the Court will entertain that concern.

It is not clear from Khau’s Opposition whether he is arguing that the offset should be in an amount other than the total of the settlements in the amount of $175,000. In the alternative, Khau requests that this court recognize his entitlement to an offset of $175,000. (Opposition at p. 6.) Hallett has stipulated that Khau is entitled to such an offset. (Supp. Kuehl Decl. ¶ 11.) The court finds that Khau is entitled to the $175,000 offset.

Wells Fargo and Chase, and Speedy, have filed opposing briefs contesting Wells Fargo and Chases entitlement to an offset. This is Gilbarcos motion for determination of good faith, and the issue of offset need not be addressed currently. A motion for offset may be brought as a posttrial motion. (See Garcia v. Duro Dyne Corp. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 92, 96 [trial court ruled on a motion to determine offset after jury verdict].)

The courts file does not reflect that Defendants filed such a motion. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS Defendants motion to reduce the compensatory damage award which is offset by the amount Plaintiff obtained in prior settlements, thus reducing the award to $0. The court DENIES Defendants motion to reduce the punitive damages award.

MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT KPC TOWNE CENTRE MCC1701100 INTEREST BY KPC TOWNE CENTRE LLC VS SFM LLC LLC Tentative Ruling: GRANT the motion and award prejudgment interest at 2.5% + prime. Plaintiff shall meet and confer with Defendant and then resubmit a joint interest calculation after the offset of Defendant’s liquidated damages. The amount of damages is certain because it is the monthly payment of rent that was at issue.

The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is therefore GRANTED as to Affirmative Defenses No. 3–4, 7–12, and 13–15, and DENIED as to Affirmative Defenses No. 5–6, 13 (Offset), and 16. Plaintiff to give notice.

As such, Defendants motion for attorneys fees is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $16,500. Motion For Offset of Judgments The Court has reviewed the moving, opposing and reply briefs filed by the parties, but only addresses the points which the Court deems to be material to the disposition of this motion. Plaintiff 2150 MSC Capital LLC moves for an order granting an equitable set-off of the judgments existing between the parties.

While petitioner contends that the fee judgment was satisfied in full at the time the offset order was entered, and that the motion is therefore untimely, the Court agrees with SBCAG that the offset did not contemplate the fees to which SBCAG was entitled in obtaining the offset order. Consequently, a post-judgment motion for fees of enforcement was not precluded by the entry of the offset order, given that there had been no opportunity for SBCAG to have earlier sought those fees via the required motion.

The court's tentative ruling is to: Deny Defendants' Motion to Strike First Amended Complaint CCP § 436. Discussion The complaint with the balances claim needs to be put at issue, before any determination on the claimed basis for the offset, and the offset limited to Plaintiff's claims which arose before he filed bankruptcy.

If petitioner has satisfied the requirements for attachment, determining whether DDS has established the probable validity of its offset claims and, if so, the extent of the offset.”

If Plaintiff's economic damages were not subject to an offset, the City would be liable for the full damages of $174,992.72 and entitled to seek indemnity from Ms. Owens for 30% of that amount, or $52,497.82. Here, however, the economic damages are subject to a Witt v. Jackson offset in the amount of $52,497.82. The basis for this offset is the imputation of Ms. Owen's liability to the employer. Thus, the offset must be applied to Ms. Owen's share of liability. As the offset precisely matches Ms.

Any other impacts of the settlement on the litigation or the parties thereto are beyond the scope of the court’s authority in determining that motion, and the order granting the motion is not the appropriate place for those impacts to be determined. Should judgment be entered against QDC’s joint tortfeasors at trial, they will be entitled to an offset, by the legal effect of Section 877(a).

Defendants Gokhan Kisacikoglu and Aylin Kisacikoglu’s motion to continue the hearing on Plaintiff Beniya Offset Corp.’s Motion to Enter Judgment is denied. Defendants fail to identify any good cause to continue the instant motion. Judgment is entered in Plaintiff’s favor against Defendants Gokhan Kisacikoglu and Aylin Kisacikoglu in the principal amount of $18,535.00 (stipulated judgment of $18,535.00 less credit for $0 paid). Moving party to give notice.

Plaintiff opposes but provides no substantive argument, but notes its pending motion to set aside default in the unlawful detainer matter. Plaintiff provides no authority or argument that its pending motion means defendant should not be allowed to present an offset defense. GRANTED. DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR BY MICROSOFT OFFICE TEAMS.

Matter on the Law & Motion Calendar for Monday, July 15, 2024, Line 1. PETITIONER HAMDY FAYAD's Motion For Equitable Setoff Of Judgment And To Compel Satisfaction Of Judgment. Hamdy Fayad's "motion for equitable setoff of judgment and to compel satisfaction of judgments" is denied. Fayad has a 9/14/22 judgment against Gamal Amin and Nafisa Shafy.

Likewise, whether or not there would be entitlement to an offset (or whether Defendant would be estopped from seeking an offset), the operative complaint still seeks damages which would still require consideration of evidentiary and factual issues which overlap with the other cases. Therefore, it appears likely that this case could lead to inconsistent factual determinations when compared with one or both of the Los Angeles actions. For these reasons, the motion for a stay is granted.

Thus, resolution of the issue of the amount of any offset is not required on a motion for a good faith determination. However, based on the information before the court on this motion it appears Church of the Nazarene will be entitled, at a minimum, to an offset in an amount equal to the amount at the low end of the range provided by PLNU. Based on the evidence presented, the court finds the settlement to be in good faith.

Mileage Offset Land Rover argues that, under CCP §1793.2(d)(2)(C), it is entitled to a mileage offset of $9,280.11 from the sticker price of $110,599.19 paid by McNelley.

The language also appears in the Successors and Assigns section, but for the avoidance of doubt, Blackpointe has stated in writing, both in the motion ( See Motion at 11:4-25) and in the reply ( See Reply at 3:18-4:21), that the agreement is not intended to limit the Remaining Defendants right to offset, should a jury or the Court find offset appropriate after trial. Second, the allocation is clear.

Motion for summary judgment is denied as to plaintiff Max Yang.

Relying on CCP § 877, SDG&E seeks an offset in the amount of $75,000 based on NV5's pre-trial settlement with Plaintiff.

The motion filed was identical to the April 2, 2025 motion except Defendant Jamilah Duncan submitted the CVs of the proposed appraisers. No opposition was filed. The motion to appoint an appraiser is granted. The request to acquire Plaintiffs interest in the 136 th St. Property by way of offset remains denied as premature.

Motion by Defendant/Cross-complainant WDI International, Inc. for Leave to File First Amended Answer: Defendant WDI International, Inc.’s motion for leave to file a first amended answer to add the affirmative defense of offset is GRANTED. C.C.P. § 473(a)(1) and Husley v. Koehler (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1159.

Defendants did not challenge these costs in a motion to strike or tax costs or by way of their opposition to this motion. The statutory costs pursuant to C.C.P. section 1033.5 total $6,296.90. Plaintiff is also awarded $2,327.73 in costs pursuant to Civil Code section 1717 and the parties' lease at section 24.13, which are also not challenged by Defendants in opposition. The grand cost total is $8,724.63. Offset Pursuant to the lease, Plaintiff is also entitled to an offset. (Lease, at § 13.3.)

The Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement by defendants Lucas General Contracting Corp. and Thomas H. Weeda and intervenor Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. is granted and the settlement is approved. 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.

See Motion, Dec. of T. Bonder, ¶15.

Judge Beckloff also noted that Plaintiffs reduction for actual rent received under the Scotch & Soda lease was proper as was the total estimated offset of $148,624.56. (Writ of Attachment granted 01/14/22.) Judge Beckloff noted that Bailey had failed to demonstrate that Centurys calculations of the offset amount were incorrect. In making similar arguments in this Motion, Bailey has again failed to demonstrate how Centurys estimated damages are incorrect.

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies Toyotas motion for summary judgment, and denies summary adjudication as to all except Paragon Globals seventh affirmative defense for offset. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Since it is highly unlikely that the litigants would write a check for the amount of the offset, the award of the appraisers will include both a gross value, a 50% share of the adjusted net assets of RR Crane, and a net value that incorporates the application of the offset to the 50% share of Brian Crane which should be part of the award. (Motion, pp. 41-42.)

Thus, AWPA is not responsible for any damages KDF may recover on its cross-complaint, and KDF may not offset any judgment it obtains against Harper to reduce its liability to AWPA, who under the law of this case is not Harper’s alter ego, regardless of any recent appellate opinions on the subject of reverse alter ego liability. AWPA’s request in its opposition for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs under CCP §685.040 for opposing this motion is denied without prejudice as procedurally improper.

Payments to entity as “offset” to the civil penalty.

Here, Respondent had not previously sought to offset the amount of the judgment in favor of Robert Gentino (Respondent’s Motion filed 11/27/19, at p. 4), and it would not be appropriate to do so. Accordingly, Respondent’s motion to amend judgment offsetting statutory judgment lien (CCP § 708.470) is GRANTED. Respondent’s lien in the amount of $322,066.77 is offset against the amount of the judgment in favor of Petitioner in this case, $314,583.53.

Plaintiff opposes the motion. After addressing the concerns raised by Defendant and applying the relevant legal standards, the Court concludes that no stay should be issued and denies Defendants motion in its entirety.

Wright opposes the motion. She first notes that Spalding does not cite any legal authority that would permit the Court to offset Spalding's judgment as he requests. Wright further argues that Spalding's motion must fail because he does not provide evidence that Spalding had insurance with CSAA that provided for medical payments, and that CSAA actually paid some of Wright's medical bills, and that no such evidence was presented at trial.