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

DANIEL MCCULLOUGH VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

.: 18STCV09107 Hearing Date: September 22, 2020 [Tentative] order RE: MOTION TO CONTEST APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT NOTICE Judge Goorvitch was sworn-in as a Superior Court Judge on December 15, 2015. Prior to that time, Judge Goorvitch made the following campaign contributions to Michael N. Feuer: (1) $100 to Mr. Feuer’s 2008 campaign for the 42nd Assembly District on or about November 9, 2007; (2) $100 to Mr.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

JOHN RODRIGUEZ VS CITY OF IRWINDALE ET AL

Defendant Irwindale’s motion for determination of good faith settlement is GRANTED. 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

MARCO GARCIA-MARTINEZ VS CITY OF VERNON ET AL

On August 20, 2020, the Court granted Downey’s motion for determination of good faith settlement of Defendants’ cross-complaint in part. On January 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed his operative complaint asserting two causes of action. Relevant for the purposes of this motion, Plaintiff asserts his second cause of action for statutory liability/dangerous condition of public property against Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BARSEGH GHAZARIAN VS VARUZH AZIZIAN ET AL

Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement The Court was originally scheduled to hear this motion for determination of good faith settlement on 2/04/20. At issue on the motion is a settlement between Plaintiff and Werner pursuant to which Werner would pay Plaintiff $7,500 in full settlement of all potential claims against it. Werner seeks a good faith determination, and the Azizians oppose the motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

PAULA DOROTHY THOMAS VS MARCIA DALEY

The application for good faith settlement is GRANTED, and the motion contesting same is DENIED. Defendant to provide notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

TAAT VS. FAZELI

Faith Settlement, on the condition that, and upon Settling Defendants’ filing of a notice that complies with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1382.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

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

On February 25, 2020, Specially Appearing Cross-Defendant Jane Kiely Davis filed a motion for the determination of good faith settlement.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

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

Accordingly, the application for determination of good faith settlement is DENIED.

  • 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

CONCLUSION First Option’s motion for determination of good faith settlement is granted. First Option is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

KALENACK VS COUNTY OF VENTURA

. _____________________________________________ The following is the Court's tentative decision concerning the motion of defendant and cross-defendant, County of Ventura ("County"), for a determination of good faith settlement as to the Complaint of plaintiff, Charlotte Kalenack ("Kalenack"): Opposition The motion is opposed by defendant and cross-complainant, Charter Communications, Inc. ("Charter"). The motion is not opposed by any other party.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

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

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

However, Defendant points out that an opposition to a motion for good faith settlement is not likely the proper vehicle to assert arguments against standing for a wrongful death action. Ms. Bonner has not filed a Declaratory Relief Action or filed a Probate Action or sought any order from the Family Court. The Court agrees with Defendant that the Court is not making a determination of Mr. Jackson’s standing to bring a wrongful death action, on this motion to determine good faith settlement.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

SUBIONO WAISTO VS SANTY KAZALI

Courts have concluded that “‘the Legislature intends that only good faith settlement offers qualify as valid offers under section 998.’” Arno v. Helinet Corp., 130 Cal.App.4th 1019, 1024 (2005) [citations omitted]. An offer “must be realistically reasonable under the circumstances of the particular case. Normally, therefore, a token or nominal offer will not satisfy this good faith requirement….” Wear v. Calderon, 121 Cal.App.3d 818, 821 (1981).

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2020

DIMAS DE JESUS SOLARES VS JONG I KIM ET AL

BC620885 Hearing Date September 8, 2020 Defendant Fouladinejad’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement (UOPPOSED) Plaintiff alleges a mattress fell off a truck driven by defendants Edwards and Yarbrough, causing the vehicles driven by plaintiff and defendants Castro and Kim to collide. At mediation in February 2020 plaintiff and defendant Fouladinejad, employer of Edwards and Yarbrough, agreed to settle for $375,000. Fouladinejad now moves for a determination of good faith settlement.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

JAIMIE VALENZUELA, ET AL. VS MARTIN ANDALUZ ABARCA, ET AL.

On April 30, 2020, an “Order on R&R Auto Group, Inc.’s Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement” was filed. On June 22, 2020, Plaintiff dismissed R&R with prejudice. On July 2, 2020, U-Haul’s, eMove’s, Kham’s, Grand Super Center, Inc., N. Abdelrahman’s, H Mart—Grand Super Center, Inc.’s and K. Abdelrahman’s defaults were entered. On July 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed an “Amendment to Complaint,” wherein Ahmed Abdelrahman (“A. Abdelrahman”) was named in lieu of Doe 204.

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

FANNY DILLARD VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, ET AL.

On June 15, 2020, Tran filed a application for determination of good faith settlement. DISCUSSION Defendant Buu Van Tran requests an order that the settlement entered into by him and plaintiff was made in good faith. In City of Grand View Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

FANNY DILLARD VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, ET AL.

Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. RULING The motion is GRANTED. The court ORDERS that any and all present and future claims against Buu Van Tran, by or on behalf of joint tortfeasors or co-obligors are barred. BACKGROUND On May 16, 2019, Fanny Dillard filed a complaint against Southern California Edison, Herman Weissker Power, Inc., and Buu Van Tran.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

NICHOLS VS. GUNDERSON

DEF GSM Auto Group, LLC Motion to Contest Good Faith Settlement Defendant GSM Auto Group, LLC’s motion to contest the good faith settlement application filed by defendant Nissan North America, Inc. is denied. The court will grant Nissan North America’s application for good faith settlement determination.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

PETER MICHAEL BOESEN JR ET AL VS CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILE INSUR

On August 21, 2020, Defendant Paley Stone & Tile Forensic (“Paley”) has filed an opposition to C&C’s and Admiral’s motion for determination of good faith settlement. Analysis: GRANTED Considering all the Tech-Bilt factors, the Court finds that the settlement is in good faith. First, the Court considers the rough approximation of Plaintiffs total recovery and the parties’ liability. Plaintiffs’ expert has estimated that the cost to repair the subject property is approximately $400,000.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

OAKWOOD LAKE WATER DISTRICT VS. BECK PROPERTIES, INC.

The court having read and considered defendant H and R plumbing‘s application for determination of good faith settlement filed herein on July 1, 2020 and defendant Conco West Incorporated’s opposition filed July 24, 2020; plaintiff’s opposition to Conco‘s contest filed August 21, 2020; supporting declarations and replies rules as follows.

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2020

  • Judge

    George J. Abdallah

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

IGNACIO HERNANDEZ VS WILLIAM RIVAS

The Court’s file reflects that on 06/25/2020, Defendant Ochoa filed a Notice of Settlement and Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement. The application was served by certified mail on the same date. On 06/29/2020, the Court set a hearing date of 09/01/2020 for the Defendant’s application. Notice of the hearing was served on all parties by the clerk on the same date. On 07/17/2020, Defendant Ochoa also gave notice of the 09/01/2020 hearing.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

IGNACIO HERNANDEZ VS WILLIAM RIVAS

The Court’s file reflects that on 6/25/20, Defendant Ochoa filed a Notice of Settlement and Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement. The application was served by certified mail on the same date. On 6/29/20, the Court set a hearing date of 9/1/20 for the Defendant’s application. Notice of the hearing was served on all parties by the clerk on the same date. On 7/17/20, Defendant Ochoa also gave notice of the 9/1/20 hearing.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

GROOM VS. SCIARONNI

The criteria for the determination of a good faith settlement were originally set out by the California Supreme Court in Tech-Bilt.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ESTATE OF MARY L COLE ET AL VS ARMEN HOVHANNISYAN MD GROUP

Schorr”), each Defendant filed a Notice of Partial Settlement and Application for Good Faith Settlement pursuant to CCP § 877.6(a)(2). The Court has reviewed the Applications and supporting evidence therewith. As to Defendant Prime Healthcare, the Court received no noticed motion contesting the good faith settlement within the statutory period allotted under CCP § 877.6(a)(2).

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 66     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.