Wave Property Management , Vs. Janette Nicole Bennett .

U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A. VS. SELLS Case Number: 22CV-0200669 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal: An Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal (hereinafter “OSC”) issued May 31, 2024, to Plaintiff’s Counsel for failure to submit a proposed judgment as ordered on September 25, 2023. Counsel has submitted a response to the OSC Re: Dismissal, and a Request to Vacate an Order of Sanctions that was made by Judge Boeckman on May 28, 2024. The Court declines to vacate its May 31, 2024 Order imposing sanctions. That issue is not properly before the Court. That order was issued by another judge and Counsel failed to appear at the hearing on that matter. A proposed judgment was lodged with the Court on June 24, 2024. However, the Court notes that the proposed judgment identifies two street addresses for the subject property, each of which are different from the street address identified in the Request for Court Judgment by Default. The Court needs further clarification as to the correct address. The ‘correctness’ of the judgment is not at issue in the instant OSC. Only the failure to timely provide the Court with a proposed judgment is at issue in this hearing. Having reviewed counsel’s declaration, the Court finds good cause to vacate the instant OSCThe Court confirms today’s review hearing set for 9:00 a.m. ****************************************************************************** 9:00 a.m. Review Hearings ******************************************************************************

Case Number: 22STCV23623 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: 58 Judge Bruce Iwasaki Department 58 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Case Name: Sanaz Afsar, et al. v. Bunker Hill Tower Condominium Association, et al. Case No.: 22STCV23623 Motion: (1) Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement (2) Motion to Seal Moving Party: Defendant Pacific Water Tank Services, Inc. (PWTS) Responding Party: None as of July 15, 2024 (PWTS filed Notice of Non-Opposition on 7/11/24) Tentative Ruling: Defendant Pacific Water Tank Services, Inc.s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED. Defendants Motion to Seal is also GRANTED. I. Background Plaintiff owns Unit 2301 in the Bunker Hill Tower high-rise in downtown Los Angeles. Plaintiff alleges that on April 13, 2022, Defendants Bunker Hill Tower Condominium Association (BHTCA) and Pacific Water Tank Services Inc. (PWTS) discharged 2000 or more gallons of dirty water directly into Plaintiffs unit, causing extensive property damage. On July 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against BHTCA and PWTS for (1) negligence and (2) trespass. On October 14, 2022, Defendant BHTCA filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff, Saied Kashani, PWTS, VNH Enterprises, Inc. alleging (1) breach of contract; (2) negligence; (3) equitable indemnity; (4) apportionment and/or contribution; (5) declaratory relief and (6) declaratory relief. BHTCA dismissed Plaintiff and Saied Kashani from its cross-complaint on Jun 29, 2023. On November 30, 2022, Defendant PWTS filed a cross-complaint against BHTC and VNH Enterprises, Inc. alleging (1) equitable indemnity; (2) contribution; (3) apportionment; and (4) declaratory relief. This is the motion by PWTS for determination of good faith settlement, and also a motion to seal the settlement documents by the settlement amount. The motions are unopposed. II. Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement A. Legal Standard Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 states, in pertinent part: (a) Any party to an action wherein it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of good faith or a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors . . . [para.] (c) A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasors from any further claims against the settling tortfeasors for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault. [para.] (d) The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue. In determining whether a settlement is in good faith, our Supreme Court stated that the trial court should inquire into, among other things, ...whether the amount of the settlement is within the reasonable range of the settling tortfeasors proportional share of comparative liability for the plaintiffs injuries. ( Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.) The intent and policies underlying section 877.6 require that a number of facts be taken into account (i.e. the Tech-Bilt factors) including: (1) a rough approximation of plaintiffs total recovery and the settlors proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) the allocation of settlement proceeds among defendants; (4) a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial; (5) the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants; and (6) the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interest of the nonsettling defendants. A defendants settlement figure must not be grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person, at the time of the settlement, would estimate the settling defendants liability to be. The party asserting the lack of good faith has the burden of proof. (Code Civ. Proc., §877.6, subd. (d).) The party asserting lack of good faith should 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 objective of section 877.6. ( Tech-Bilt at pp. 500-501.) A determination that the settlement was in good faith would 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, subd. (c).) Any existing cross-complaints for such claims would be subject to dismissal. While an unopposed application for good faith settlement may be granted on bare bones facts, an opposed application requires the Court to consider the settlement based on the Tech-Bilt factors. ( City of Grand Terrace (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.) This requires the settlor to provide the Court with sufficient evidentiary basis to enable the court to consider and evaluate the various aspects of the settlement. ( Id. at p. 1263.) Because Tech-Bilt mandates a rough approximation of the settling defendant's proportionate liability and consideration of all other defendants' proportionate liability and consideration of all other factors that might affect the fairness of the settlement as respects non-settling defendants, the affidavits, declarations or other evidence should provide the court with the facts necessary to evaluate the settlement in terms of the factors contemplated by Tech-Bilt . Without the facts, in a contested hearing, it is impossible for a court to exercise its discretion in an appropriate fashion. ( Ibid. ) B. Application to Facts 1. Settling parties: (1) Plaintiff Sanaz Afsar (2) Defendant PWTS 2. Terms of settlement: In consideration for a release of the settling parties by each of the settlement parties, and a dismissal of the action against PWTS, PWTS will pay Plaintiff a sum in settlement. [1] The settlement will result in dismissal of Plaintiffs complaint and BHTCA and Seabreeze Management Company, Incs cross-complaint against PWTS. 3. Rough Approximation of Plaintiffs Total Recovery and Settlors Proportionate Liability: Substantial evidence (e.g., factual declarations) showing the nature and extent of the settling defendant's liability is required for a good-faith determination. Without such evidence, a good faith determination is an abuse of discretion. ( Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co . (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1348 (questionable assumptions in moving party's memorandum of points and authorities insufficient to show settlement was reasonable); Greshko v. County of Los Angeles (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 822, 834 (attorney's declaration re settling defendant's liability insufficient where he failed to provide specific supporting facts or expert opinion). The ultimate determinant of good faith is whether the settlement is grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person at the time of settlement would estimate the settlor's liability to be. ( City of Grand Terrace vs. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal App.3d 1251, 1262.) When a trial court considers the good faith of a settlement, it must determine each tortfeasor's proportionate share of liability. The trial court's good faith determination must also take into account the settling tortfeasor's potential liability for indemnity to a cotortfeasor, as well as the settling tortfeasor's potential liability to the plaintiff. In so doing, a trial court must consider each of the plaintiff's claims and possible recoveries and the potential liability of the joint tortfeasors. ( Cal-Jones Properties v. Evans Pacific Corp. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 324, 328.) PWTS maintains its liability for the incident is minimal at best. PWTSs only involvement in this action is as the entity hired by BHTCA to service a water tank on the premises. (Motion, Carpenter Dec., ¶3.) PWTS argues the water intrusion was not the result of its conduct. ( Id. at ¶3.) PWTS maintains the tank was already drained when it arrived, and it was at all times BHTCAs responsibility to drain the tank. ( Id. at ¶4.) PWTS establishes its proportionate liability is likely zero. No oppositions have been filed to this motion. For this reason, PWTSs failure to provide any information regarding Plaintiffs approximate recovery is immaterial. 4. Allocation: In the typical one-plaintiff, multiple-defendants, personal injury action each tortfeasor is potentially liable for the same injury to the plaintiff. 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, or because a sliding scale settlement is used and payments by the settling defendant are contingent upon the degree of plaintiff's success against the remaining defendants. In others, the amount of the offset is clouded by injection of noncash consideration into the settlement or, as here, by settling claims for separate injuries not all of which would be attributable to conduct of the remaining defendants. ( Alcal Roofing & Insulation v. Superior Court (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1121, 1124-1125.) 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. A natural tension will exist between plaintiff, who benefits by undervaluing the settlement in order to permit greater recovery against the remaining defendants, and the settling defendant, who would want the settlement value high enough to be approved in order to relieve settling defendant from liability for comparative indemnity or contribution. Requiring a joint valuation by the plaintiff and the settling defendant should generally produce a reasonable valuation. ( Id. ) No allocation of the settlement proceeds is required. There is a single Plaintiff and the causes of action allege the same damages. There is also no noncash consideration in the settlement. 5. Fraud, Collusion and Tortious Conduct: Based on the record, there is no evidence of fraud, collusion or tortious conduct indicating that the settlement was entered into to injure Defendant BHTC or other remaining defendants or cross-defendants. 6. Recognition that settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial: PWTSs settlement is less than if it were found liable at trial. PWTS maintains, however, that its liability is zero. 7. Financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants: The settlement is not disproportionately low. As such, PWTSs financial conditions and insurance policy limits are immaterial. ( L.C. Rudd & Son, Inc. v. Supr. Ct. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 742, 749-750 (request for discovery into defendants financial condition for purposes of determining good faith settlement denied; financial condition of settling defendant only relevant where settlement is disproportionately low).) III. Motion to Seal Documents Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open to the public. (California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (c).) Therefore, pleadings, motions, discovery documents, and other papers may not be filed under seal merely by stipulation of the parties. The parties' agreement that certain documents be filed under seal is improper and insufficient. ( Savaglio v. WalMart Stores, Inc . (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 600.) A prior court order must be obtained. (California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (a); H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 888.) At a minimum, a party seeking to seal documents must come forward with a specific list of facts sought to be withheld and specific reasons for withholding them. ( Id. at 894.) Before substantive courtroom proceedings are closed or transcripts are ordered sealed, a trial court must hold a hearing and expressly find that (i) there exists an overriding interest supporting closure and/or sealing; (ii) there is a substantial probability that the interest will be prejudiced absent closure and/or sealing; (iii) the proposed closure and/or sealing is narrowly tailored to serve the overriding interest; and (iv) there is no less restrictive means of achieving the overriding interest. ( NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Supr. Ct. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1217-1218.) PWTS moves to seal the Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement and the declaration of Elizabeth J. Carpenter. PWTS submitted a public redacted version of the documents it the settlement amount redacted and it lodged an unredacted version with the Court, as required under California Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subdivision (b)(5). PWTS moves to seal these documents to maintain the confidentiality of the settlement amount. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality provision. (Motion to Seal, Carpenter Dec., ¶2.) There is no overriding public interest in the settlement amount agreed to between Plaintiff and PWTS. No oppositions have been filed to the Motion to Seal. The motion to seal is granted. PWTS demonstrates an overriding interest in sealing the settlement amount, namely preservation of the confidentiality of the settlement as agreed to by the parties. The parties willingness to settle and their interest in maintaining the settlements confidentiality can only be served by the very limited redactions of the papers. PWTS establishes that there are no less restrictive means to achieve this overriding interest. [1] The Court has reviewed this sum, but, in light of the ruling on the motion to seal, does not disclose it here.

WAGNER VS. LLOYD Case Number: CVCV21-0198602 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of counsel. At the last hearing on May 20, 2024, both parties represented that they were trying to obtain counsel. There was also a question of whether Plaintiff was acting in her capacity as a Trustee. An appearance by both parties is required on today’s calendar. Plaintiff should be prepared to address whether the property is held by a trust or as individuals.

On the Court’ own motion, the Further Case Management Conference set for 7/5/24 at 9:00 AM is CONTINUED TO 7/26/24 at 9:00 AM in Dept. 10C to be heard together with Defendant's Demurrer. No appearance is necessary on 7/5/24 at 9:00 AM

21CV00921 OLSON v. RYAN DEFENDANT RYAN’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION The motion is denied. Within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, a party may make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. (CCP § 1008.) Defendant has not offered any new facts, law or circumstances warranting reconsideration of the court’s March 25, 2024, Final Judgment. The court also notes that the proceeds from the partition sale have been distributed to the parties. (Referee’s Post-Disposition Report, 5/14/24.) The court orders the check received by the referee for $148.50 distributed to the referee for his unpaid hours in handling the close of escrow. (Referee Declaration, 6/4/24.) The court also discharges the referee. Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing (unless the tentative is simply to “grant”). Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.

Case Number: 21STCV45782 Hearing Date: July 22, 2024 Dept: 20 Tentative Ruling Judge Kevin C. Brazile Department 20 Hearing Date: July 22, 2024 Case Name: Lanksherman Plaza, LLC, et al. v. West American Insurance Company, et al. Case No.: 21STCV45782 Matter: Motions to Compel Further Responses (2x) Moving Party: Defendant West American Insurance Company Responding Party: Plaintiffs Lanksherman Plaza, LLC and Dannys Liquor & Market, Inc. Notice: OK Ruling: The Motions are granted. Moving parties to give notice. If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On December 14, 2021, Plaintiffs Lanksherman Plaza, LLC (Lanksherman) and Dannys Liquor & Market, Inc. (Dannys Liquor) filed the operative Complaint for (1) breach of contract (Lanksherman against Defendant West American Insurance Company (West)), (2) breach of contract (Dannys Liquor against Defendant Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company (Mass)), and (3) negligence/negligent entrustment (both Plaintiffs against Defendants Turcios Trucking, Inc., Francisco Aparicio, Romero Turcios). The allegations of the Complaint are as follows. Lanksherman owns certain commercial property located at 7202 Lankershim Boulevard, North Hollywood, California 91605. Dannys Liquor operates a business at this property. Francisco Aparicio negligently drove a tractor-trailer into the subject property, causing damage. Defendants Turcios Trucking, Inc. and Romero Turcios are the owners of the tractor-trailer and negligently entrusted Aparicio with such tractor-trailer. West provided property/commercial liability insurance to Lanksherman for the subject property and breached that policy by failing to pay all damages covered by the policy. Mass provided a businessowners policy to Dannys Liquor and breached that policy by failing to pay all damages covered under the policy. West now seeks to compel further responses to most of its requests for production, set one, nos. 1-87 from Plaintiffs Lanksherman and Dannys Liquor. The responses were all essentially as follows: Objection: attorney-client privilege, work product. Without waiving this objection, all responsive documents that can be located on a diligent search and reasonable inquiry will be produced. While nearly sufficient, Plaintiffs apparently failed to indicate what documents relate to what requests. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.280(a).) Further, Plaintiffs should remove their reference to documents that can be located, if any, or other similar phrases. If something cannot be found then a response should be provided pursuant to CCP § 2031.230. Finally, if documents are being withheld on the basis of a privilege, then the basis for that privilege must be explained or a privilege log must be provided. In sum, the Motions are granted. Further responses are to be provided within 30 days. The Court awards reduced sanctions in the total amount of $1,000. Plaintiffs are jointly and severally liable for this sum. Moving parties to give notice. If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Please use Case Management Search for Tentative Ruling(s).

Case Number: 22SMCV02460 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: 207 TENTATIVE RULING DEPARTMENT 207 HEARING DATE July 16, 2024 CASE NUMBER 22SMCV02460 MOTION Motion to Quash Third Party Subpoenas MOVING PARTY Defendant Sam Ostayan OPPOSING PARTY none MOTION On December 29, 2023, Defendant Sam Ostayan (Defendant) filed a Notice of Omnibus Motion to Quah Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records to Attorney Lender Services, Inc.; Total Lender Solutions, Inc.; S.B.S. Lien Services; Mortgage Lender Services; Integrated Lender Services, Inc.; First American Title Insurance Co.; and Clear Recon Corp. On February 14, 2024, Defendant filed an Amended Notice of Omnibus Motion, and on March 20, 2024, Defendant filed a Second Amended Notice of Omnibus Motion. Although the notices all purport to be based on the memorandum of points and authorities, declaration of Katherine K. Meleski, no such memorandum of points and authorities or declaration appears in the Courts record. The motion is unopposed. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS Foremost, Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 requires that [a]ll moving and supporting papers shall be filed and served at least 16 court days before the hearing. The moving and supporting papers served shall be a copy of the papers filed or to be filed with the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b); see also Code Civ. Proc., § 1010; Cal;. Rules of Court, rule 3.1112(a) [the papers filed in support of a motion must consist of at least the following: . . . A memorandum in support of the motion or demurrer].) Here, Defendant failed to file and serve a memorandum of points and authorities. As such, the Court finds that the motion is not meritorious. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(a) [A party filing a motion, except for a motion listed in rule 3.1114, must serve and file a supporting memorandum. The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion or special demurrer is not meritorious and cause for its denial and, in the case of a demurrer, as a waiver of all grounds not supported].) Further, because Defendant failed to file supporting papers including a declaration, Defendants motion does not satisfy the requisite procedural requirements to demonstrate that the parties met and conferred. Further, because there is no separate statement outlining the requested discovery, the Court cannot make a determination as to whether Defendants motion to quash is righteous and should be granted. (See California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 [requiring separate statement for discovery motions].) CONCLUSION AND ORDER Therefore, Defendants motion is denied on procedural grounds for failure to file and serve supporting papers, including a memorandum of points and authorities, a declaration, and a separate statement. Defendant shall provide notice of the Courts ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith. DATED: July 16, 2024 ___________________________ Michael E. Whitaker Judge of the Superior Court