What is an Opposition to Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement?

Useful Rulings on Opposition to Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Recent Rulings on Opposition to Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

KHOURY VS RIENER

Defendants Howard Gilman and Erica Gilman’s (collectively, “Gilmans”) Motion to Contest the Good Faith Settlement application of defendants David Riener and Valerie Riener (collectively, “Rieners”) vis-à-vis plaintiff Fares Khoury (“Plaintiff”) is DENIED. There is no precise yardstick for measuring the “good faith” of a settlement with one of several tortfeasors.

  • Hearing

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

Teaside Defendants have not substantially engaged in any analysis under Tech-Bilt, nor provided any information establishing that a determination of good faith settlement is not appropriate under the relevant standards. The mere fact that a determination of good faith settlement prevents a cross-complaint is not a basis for denying a determination for good faith settlement.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

BONNIE LEIGH GREGORY VS. STEVEN MICHAEL SHANE

Motion: Motion of Defendants Shane, Tan and Fang's to Contest Good Faith Settlement TENTATIVE RULING The court intends to VACATE the 10/27/20 "Order Determining Good Faith Settlement" filed by Ms. Medellin. Judge DeNoce, previously assigned to this matter, signed the order on 10/7/20, unaware that the Moving Defendants had filed their motion to contest good faith settlement on 10/6/20.

  • Hearing

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

S MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT - ROA # 174 - at the hearing of this Motion.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

TONY TUONG, ET AL. VS VANESSA CRISTINE GONZALEZ

DISCUSSION The Application for Determination of a Good Faith Settlement On July 10, 2020, Defendant Salazar filed an application for determination of a good faith settlement. The application states the following. Defendant Salazar agreed to pay Plaintiff Yan Ting He a $13,036.00 settlement and Plaintiff Tony Tuong a $10,204.00 settlement. (Application, p. 2:4-2:6.) No opposition was filed to the application by August 4, 2020. On August 6, 2020, the Court found the settlement to be in good faith.

  • Hearing

ANTHONY VS. LASSO

Faith Settlement (entire 2.0 hours) · Discovery (partial 11.3 hours) · Notice of Depositions/Objections to Notice of Depositions (partial 1.5 hours) · Expert Designation (partial 0.4 hours) · Notice of Expert Depositions – (entire 7.9 hours) · Trial Documents (partial 4.7 hours – entries that are highlighted) Thus, the Court DENIES fees for 600.9 hours from the 950.6 hours for which plaintiff’s seeks attorney fees.

  • Hearing

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

.: 19STCV11693 Hearing Date: November 19, 2020 [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: DEFENDANT MARS INVESTORS, LLC’S APPLICATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER DETERMINING GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT/ Defendant PEARLA, LLC’S MOTION TO CONTEST GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT BY MARS INVESTORS, LLC Defendant Mars Investors, LLC’s Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED. Defendant Pearla LLC’s Motion to Contest Good Faith Settlement by Mars Investors, LLC is DENIED.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

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

SUBJECT: Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement Moving Party: Defendants 407 W. 22nd Street, LLC and Beach Front Property Management, Inc. Resp. Party: Defendant G&D Management & Apartment Building, L. Defendants’ application for determination of good faith settlement is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

KPS ALARMS VS SMITH

(Opposition, pp. 2-3). But the estimate was for “total” damages, not just damages relating to Anixter. (Abbott Dec., ¶ 3 (“The present lawsuit is in the relatively early stages of discovery and investigation, but at this point in time, and for purposes of this Motion For a Good Faith Settlement Determination only, KPS’ alleged damages total $145,593.94”)(emphasis added).)

  • Hearing

MEDS DIRECT RX OF NY LLC ET AL VS NOAH JUSSIM ET AL

On October 5, 2020, the Court granted McGuire Woods’ motion for determination of good faith settlement. On October 15, 2020, Plaintiffs dismissed with prejudice the SAC’s first, third, fifth, seventh, and ninth causes of action against McGuire Woods and Jussim. That leaves the second cause of action for legal malpractice, sixth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, and eighth cause of action for breach of contract.

  • Hearing

HUMBERTO RAMIREZ ET AL VS BRE INVESTMENT LLC ET AL

Moving Defendant filed a motion for determination of good faith settlement (the “Motion”)[1] as to a settlement entered into between Moving Defendant and Plaintiffs. The Motion is unopposed. Due to the lack of opposition, the Court GRANTS the Motion. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

RANDALL VS. MANOR ON THE VINE, LLC

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

ENGEL VS MEDINA

Indeed, there is no declaration from Valizan or plaintiffs regarding the Statement of Damages, which claims $20 million in damages; plaintiffs do not state the actual claim they are making for recovery so that the court may determine the proportionate amount Valizan is paying compared to the potential liability to which Medina will remain exposed if the good faith settlement is approved.

  • Hearing

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

Motion for Good Faith Settlement Priority moves to contest the good faith of a settlement between Fairway and Plaintiff. A.

  • 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.

Cross Defendant Patch of Land Lending, LLC’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is granted. The parties who originally opposed this motion, cross-defendant and cross-complainant Shelly Eshelman, and cross-defendant Shelly Eshelman Realty, Inc., have withdrawn their opposition, as long as Patch of Land dismisses its own cross-complaint against the Eshelman parties, which Patch of Land has agreed to do.

  • Hearing

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

Also on June 12, 2020, Mars filed an Application for the Issuance of an Order Determining Good Faith Settlement. On July 6, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Challenge the Good Faith of a Settlement. On October 23, 2020, Mars filed an Opposition.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Also on June 12, 2020, Mars filed an Application for the Issuance of an Order Determining Good Faith Settlement. On July 6, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Challenge the Good Faith of a Settlement. On October 23, 2020, Mars filed an Opposition.

  • Hearing

CAROLYN THOMAS VS MARQUEZ PRODUCE, ET AL.

settlement.

  • Hearing

THE ALEPYAN FAMILY TRUST VS. ALLEN HERSHBERG, ET AL

CASE NO: LC106776 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO CONTEST APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT Dept. T 8:30 a.m. November 10, 2020 [TENTATIVE] ORDER: The Motion to Contest Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED. The court does not find the settlement meets the requirements of Tech-Bilt, et al., etc. INTRODUCTION Defendant, Cross-Defendant, and Cross-Complainant County Records Research, Inc.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

THE LAW OF FOX AND FOX, VS HELENA RADNIA YOUABIAN

As both parties present different versions of the events that transpired after this Court ordered them to meet and confer in good faith, the parties are ordered to appear at the hearing and discuss their good faith settlement efforts, as well as the reason why Defendant’s offer to settle the case for $5,957.62, the full amount demanded under the Complaint, is insufficient. Conclusion & Order For the foregoing reasons, no tentative ruling is issued at this time.

  • Hearing

LIBERTY SURPLUS INSURANCE CORPORATION VS LTD CONSTRUCTION

Philadelphia and Tokio have now settled with Berendos and filed this application for determination of good faith settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ABRAMS VS. BLAIR

Motions (3) for determination of good faith settlement by defendants Blair, First American, and Rushmyfile (defendants.) No opposition. Motions granted. Moving parties to give notice.

  • Hearing

ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT VS SABIC INNOVATIVE PLASTICS US, LLC

s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement 2) Defendants Sabic Innovative Plastics US LLC and the General Electric Company's Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement 3) Defendant Universal Circuits, Inc.'s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement 4)Status Conference UNIVERSAL CIRCUIT INC’S MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT Defendant Universal Circuits, Inc.’s unopposed motion for determination of good faith settlement pursuant to CCP § 877.6 is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

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

The tentative ruling is to continue the hearing on Cross-Defendant Patch of Land Lending, LLC’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement to December 18, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. Although the caption on the moving papers referenced a Declaration of Darlene P. Hernandez, no declaration was included. A Hernandez Declaration was eventually filed and served with the reply papers on October 23, 2020, only seven days before the hearing.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 68     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.