Search anything: case name, case number, motion type, judge, or party

1-25 of 251 results

CALIFORNIA CAPITAL INSURANCE CO VS ROWLAND AIR INC

Plaintiff makes clear that its settlement agreement with the non-Costco defendants expressly did not account for such items, and left open the possibility that it could pursue these items against Costco. In reply, Costco argues that judicial notice of the settlement is appropriate given that it is undisputed that the settlement occurred.

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2017

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS CO VS MANZO, LORENZO ANTONIO

Legal Standard Under CCP section 664.6: If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement. (CCP § 664.6.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOSE CANUL VS BASMAT INC ET AL

The settlement provides that McStarlite will pay a non-reversionary Gross Settlement Amount of $460,000. (Haines Decl., Ex. 2, § III.2.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2018

FRANCES QUIROGA VS LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA INC

.: BC567628 HEARING: 09/29/16 #2 TENTATIVE ORDER Plaintiff FRANCES QUIROGA’s motion to set aside settlement is DENIED. In December 2014, plaintiff filed the subject elder abuse action. On June 24, 2015, plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement. That notice indicates the parties entered into a conditional settlement, and provided for a request for dismissal no later than August 15, 2015 (approximately 45 days later).

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2016

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KINNEY, SEAN VS PARK LA BREA MANAGEMENT LLC

Furthermore, there is no evidence of collusion or fraud between the parties to the settlement, nor is the settlement opposed by any other party to this action. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for good faith settlement order is granted. Moving parties to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2017

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SERGIO CONTRERAS VS AAA FLAG & BANNER MFG CO INC

The settlement provides that AAA Flag will pay a non-reversionary Gross Settlement Amount of $105,000 along with the employer’s share of the payroll taxes for the portion of the settlement allocated as wages recovered under Labor Code section 558 to the aggrieved employees. (Winston Decl., ¶¶ 15-16, Ex. A at § I(11).) The settlement provides that 1/3 of the Gross Settlement Amount ($35,000) is allocated for attorney’s fees.

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2018

ADAM JENKINS VS. GREG JOHNSON

No appearance is required under the following conditions: This case is referred to Trial Setting Process for selection of Trial and Mandatory Settlement Conference dates. All counsel (including parties appearing in pro per) shall confer and agree upon trial and settlement conference dates. Available dates can be obtained on the court's web site at http://www.saccourt.ca.gov.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ADAM JENKINS VS. GREG JOHNSON

No appearance is required under the following conditions: This case is referred to Trial Setting Process for selection of Trial and Mandatory Settlement Conference dates. All counsel (including parties appearing in pro per) shall confer and agree upon trial and settlement conference dates. Available dates can be obtained on the court's web site at http://www.saccourt.ca.gov.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KINNEY, SEAN VS PARK LA BREA MANAGEMENT LLC

The Court finds the settlement was made in good faith. The settlement is more than reasonable given the facts of the case. This amount is to be paid to Plaintiffs jointly as a couple. Furthermore, there is no evidence of collusion or fraud between the parties to the settlement nor is the settlement opposed by any other party to this action.

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2017

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ADAM JENKINS VS. GREG JOHNSON

No appearance is required under the following conditions: This case is referred to Trial Setting Process for selection of Trial and Mandatory Settlement Conference dates. All counsel (including parties appearing in pro per) shall confer and agree upon trial and settlement conference dates. Available dates can be obtained on the court's web site at http://www.saccourt.ca.gov.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ADAM JENKINS VS. GREG JOHNSON

No appearance is required under the following conditions: This case is referred to Trial Setting Process for selection of Trial and Mandatory Settlement Conference dates. All counsel (including parties appearing in pro per) shall confer and agree upon trial and settlement conference dates. Available dates can be obtained on the court's web site at http://www.saccourt.ca.gov.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ADAM JENKINS VS. GREG JOHNSON

No appearance is required under the following conditions: This case is referred to Trial Setting Process for selection of Trial and Mandatory Settlement Conference dates. All counsel (including parties appearing in pro per) shall confer and agree upon trial and settlement conference dates. Available dates can be obtained on the court's web site at http://www.saccourt.ca.gov.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BILLY CHARLES DELOACH SR ET AL VS TORRANCE MEMORIAL MEDICAL

that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial.

  • Hearing

    Nov 28, 2017

VEGA, PASCUAL GUTIERREZ VS PEREZ, DAVID RAFAEL

Plaintiffs and moving Defendants David Rafael Perez and Juan Carlos Garcia have now reached a settlement in exchange for moving Defendants’ dismissal from the action with prejudice, and release of all of Plaintiffs’ claims against them. (Motion, Moss Decl., ¶4 and Exh. B.) On September 11, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a dismissal of the entire action without prejudice. Moving Defendants filed the instant motion for determination of good faith settlement on September 21, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SUTER VS. RODRIGUEZ

This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of settlement. The Court was informed via stipulation in February 2019 that this matter had settled. No Notice of Settlement has been filed. No Request for Dismissal has been filed. The parties are ordered to appear to provide the Court with a status of the settlement.

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2019

SUTER VS. RODRIGUEZ

This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of settlement. The Court was informed via stipulation in February 2019 that this matter had settled. No Notice of Settlement has been filed. No Request for Dismissal has been filed. The parties are ordered to appear to provide the Court with a status of the settlement.

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2019

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS CO VS MANZO, LORENZO ANTONIO

Legal Standard Under CCP § 664.6: “If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.”

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

VICTORIA LARIMORE VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

On November 30, 2017, counsel for the City contacted Plaintiff’s counsel and informed him that the settlement check was ready. On December 1, 2017, the check was hand delivered to Plaintiff’s counsel. Therefore, the City argues that first, the settlement agreement submitted by Plaintiff was not signed by the City and the City Council had not approved the settlement until November 30, 2017. Thus, the settlement agreement was not binding on the City.

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2018

ARMANDO GONZALEZ ET AL VS LAKEWOOD REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER I

Furthermore, the practical considerations require that the evaluation be made on the basis of information available at the time of the settlement. (Id.) In sum, “a defendant’s settlement future must not be grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person, at the time of the settlement, would estimate the settling defendant’s liability be.” (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2017

MICHAEL BUNCH VS PINNACLE TRAVEL SERVICES LLC ET AL

Dunk Factors It is the duty of the Court, before finally approving the settlement, to conduct an inquiry into the fairness of the proposed settlement. California Practice Guide, Civil Procedure Before Trial, The Rutter Group, ¶14:139.12 (2012). The trial court has broad discretion in determining whether the settlement is fair.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2016

YAMIN T SCARDIGLI VS. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH

No appearance is required under the following conditions: This case is referred to Trial Setting Process for selection of Trial and Mandatory Settlement Conference dates. All counsel (including parties appearing in pro per) shall confer and agree upon trial and settlement conference dates. Available dates can be obtained on the court's web site at http://www.saccourt.ca.gov.

  • Hearing

    Apr 22, 2013

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KEVIN J CORREIA JR ET AL VS MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INS CO

The unopposed Motion for determination of good faith settlement by Defendant Turoci is GRANTED as prayed. CCP § 877.6. Defendant has met his burden of establishing that the settlement was made in good faith. Tech-Bilt Inc. v. Woodward Clyde Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 498; City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1261. Notice of rulings by moving party. Moving party has submitted proposed orders which the court intends to sign.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2017

RACHEL KROPP ET AL VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

Defendant demurs on the grounds that (1) the Orozco settlement agreement does not constitute an “order or decision of the commission”; (2) that the Orozco settlement agreement is inadmissible in this action pursuant to Pub. Util.

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2019

FRANK DARMIENTO VS OSCAR MEZA ET AL

On December 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Partial Settlement.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2019

RICK RYAN ET AL VS LUSTRE-CAL ET AL

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

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2016

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 11     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.