DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT
(CCP § 437c)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant City of South Pasadena’s Motion to Contest Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.
Defendants / Cross-Complainants Karen A. McClure and McClure Trust’s Application For Determination Of Good Faith Settlement is DENIED.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for premises liability. GROUNDS FOR MOTION: The settlement reached by the McClure Defendants and Plaintiff is in good faith OPPOSITION by the City: Plaintiff incurred more than $22,000.00 in medical expenses and the McClure Defendants have not shown how a settlement of merely $2,700.00 is proportional to the potential liability. OPPOSITION by Plaintiff: The McClure Defendants are liable for at least half of Plaintiff’s damages, or $12,500.00. REPLY: This action arises from a trip and fall on a City owned sidewalk. There is no evidence that the McClure Defendants, as adjacent property owners, did anything to cause the incident. The City’s contention
Type
Premises Liability (e.g.slip & fall) (Limited Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT
(CCP § 437c)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant City of South Pasadena’s Motion to Contest Determination of Good Faith Settlement is GRANTED.
Defendants / Cross-Complainants Karen A. McClure and McClure Trust’s Application For Determination Of Good Faith Settlement is DENIED.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for premises liability. GROUNDS FOR MOTION: The settlement reached by the McClure Defendants and Plaintiff is in good faith OPPOSITION by the City: Plaintiff incurred more than $22,000.00 in medical expenses and the McClure Defendants have not shown how a settlement of merely $2,700.00 is proportional to the potential liability. OPPOSITION by Plaintiff: The McClure Defendants are liable for at least half of Plaintiff’s damages, or $12,500.00. REPLY: This action arises from a trip and fall on a City owned sidewalk. There is no evidence that the McClure Defendants, as adjacent property owners, did anything to cause the incident. The City’s contention