On August 28, 2020 a
No Value
was filed
involving a dispute between
Encore Flight Corporation,
Exodus Air Service Corp,
Maisch Michael Emerson,
Nickson'S Machine Shop Incorporated Dba Nicksons Machine,
Paiz Juan Antonio,
Galynsky Elliott,
Novak Nikolai,
and
Active Magnetic Inspection Inc.,
Aero Accessories Inc.,
Aircraft Crankcase Repair A Business Organization Form Unknown Doe 1,
Aircraft Specialties Services,
Avco Corporation Dba Lycoming Engines,
Divco Inc.,
Encore Flight Corporation,
Engine Components International Inc.,
Exodus Air Service Corp,
Kps Airmotive Inc.,
Maisch Michael Emerson,
Nickson'S Machine Shop Incorporated,
Nickson'S Machine Shop Incorporated Dba Nicksons Machine,
Paiz Juan Antonio,
Superior Air Parts Inc.,
for Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (General Jurisdiction)
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 12
20STCV33006 May 12, 2021
ELLIOTT GALYNSKY, et al. vs JUAN ANTONIO PAIZ, et al. 4:00 PM
Judge: Honorable Barbara A. Meiers CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: J. Araujo ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: None
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff(s): No Appearances
For Defendant(s): No Appearances
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Ruling on Submitted Matter Re: Hearing on Ex Parte
Application for a Good Faith Settlement Determination, or for an Order Shortening Time on the
Hearing for Plaintiffs' Motion for a Good Faith Settlement Determination
The Court, having taken the matter under submission on 05/11/2021, now rules as follows:
The Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for a Good Faith Settlement
Determination, or for an Order Shortening Time on the Hearing for Plaintiffs' Motion for a Good
Faith Settlement Determination filed by Elliott Galynsky, Nikolai Novak on 05/10/2021 is
Denied.
Plaintiff in this case has filed an Ex Parte Motion for a Good Faith Settlement Determination or
an Order Shortening Time, etc. with the reason given for the need for an immediate decision by
the court being that by May 14, 2021, absent such a rapid determination, the defendants will
have to file a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10 in
order to , in essence, appeal the court’s previous denial of their motions to quash for lack of
jurisdiction in this case and that the cost of making such a filing will or might deter the
completion of a settlement which the parties in question have all but concluded.
The primary problem posed by this request is that one of the other defendants, whose cross-
complaint against them would be barred, should the motion be granted, has new counsel on
board who objects that on “shortened time” or if the pending Motion now be granted, he will be
denied sufficient time to present a meaningful opposition should he ultimately wish to oppose.
In light of these special circumstances, the court is of the view that it cannot grant the request to
immediately rule on the motion or to shorten time to hear it to a time before May 14, 2021. The
involvement of new counsel on the case, the court finds, is sufficient grounds, but in addition, it
is this court’s tentative view that with several defendants interested in the mandamus, the cost of
a filing once shared would in all likelihood be de minimis and certainly not enough to interfere
Minute Order Page 1 of 3
Document Filed Date
May 12, 2021
Case Filing Date
August 28, 2020
Category
Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (General Jurisdiction)
Status
Court-Ordered Dismissal - Other (Other) 06/22/2021
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 12 20STCV33006 May 12, 2021 ELLIOTT GALYNSKY, et al. vs JUAN ANTONIO PAIZ, et al. 4:00 PM Judge: Honorable Barbara A. Meiers CSR: None Judicial Assistant: J. Araujo ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: None APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff(s): No Appearances For Defendant(s): No Appearances NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Ruling on Submitted Matter Re: Hearing on Ex Parte Application for a Good Faith Settlement Determination, or for an Order Shortening Time on the Hearing for Plaintiffs' Motion for a Good Faith Settlement Determination The Court, having taken the matter under submission on 05/11/2021, now rules as follows: The Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for a Good Faith Settlement Determination, or for an Order Shortening Time on the Hearing for Plaintiffs' Motion for a Good Faith Settlement Determination filed by Elliott Galynsky, Nikolai Novak on 05/10/2021 is Denied. Plaintiff in this case has filed an Ex Parte Motion for a Good Faith Settlement Determination or an Order Shortening Time, etc. with the reason given for the need for an immediate decision by the court being that by May 14, 2021, absent such a rapid determination, the defendants will have to file a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10 in order to , in essence, appeal the court’s previous denial of their motions to quash for lack of jurisdiction in this case and that the cost of making such a filing will or might deter the completion of a settlement which the parties in question have all but concluded. The primary problem posed by this request is that one of the other defendants, whose cross- complaint against them would be barred, should the motion be granted, has new counsel on board who objects that on “shortened time” or if the pending Motion now be granted, he will be denied sufficient time to present a meaningful opposition should he ultimately wish to oppose. In light of these special circumstances, the court is of the view that it cannot grant the request to immediately rule on the motion or to shorten time to hear it to a time before May 14, 2021. The involvement of new counsel on the case, the court finds, is sufficient grounds, but in addition, it is this court’s tentative view that with several defendants interested in the mandamus, the cost of a filing once shared would in all likelihood be de minimis and certainly not enough to interfere Minute Order Page 1 of 3