This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/08/2019 at 02:22:14 (UTC).

ENRIQUE ALARCON VS ARTURO VEGA REYES ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/22/2016 ENRIQUE ALARCON filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against ARTURO VEGA REYES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GEORGINA T. RIZK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4803

  • Filing Date:

    12/22/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

ALARCON ENRIQUE

Defendants and Respondents

REYES ARTURO VEGA

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

CISCO DONNA M.

BERROCAL FERNANDO AKA DOE 2

JEE HYUNJOON AKA DOE 1

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

SARAJIAN ALEX ESQ.

MAYOFF WILLIAM B ESQ.

PADUA KARINA A. ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

RIVERA VIVIAN ISABEL ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Reply

11/7/2018: Reply

Minute Order

11/14/2018: Minute Order

Order

11/14/2018: Order

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

12/18/2018: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Request for Dismissal

12/21/2018: Request for Dismissal

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

1/17/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Notice of Lodging

2/14/2019: Notice of Lodging

Ex Parte Application

2/14/2019: Ex Parte Application

Notice

2/22/2019: Notice

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

2/22/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Minute Order

3/13/2019: Minute Order

Proof of Personal Service

4/4/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Notice of Ruling

4/4/2019: Notice of Ruling

Answer

5/17/2019: Answer

12 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/17/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Arturo Vega Reyes (Defendant); Fernando Berrocal (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by Fernando Berrocal (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Motion to Compel Defendant's Deposition) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • Notice of Ruling (Re Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial and Related Dates); Filed by Enrique Alarcon (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Enrique Alarcon (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to continue the trial) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (Ex Parte to Continue Trial); Filed by Enrique Alarcon (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Plaintiff's Ex-Parte Application to Continue Trial;)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
39 More Docket Entries
  • 05/24/2018
  • Ex-Parte Application; Filed by Enrique Alarcon (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2018
  • Notice of Change of Firm Name; Filed by Enrique Alarcon (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2018
  • NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Enrique Alarcon (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Enrique Alarcon (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1) NEGLIGENCE 2) NEGLIGENCE - PERMISSIVE USE OF VEHICLE DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Enrique Alarcon (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC644803    Hearing Date: February 19, 2020    Dept: 29

Motion to Challenge to Application for Good Faith Settlement by Defendant Hyunjoon Jee is DENIED.

Defendant Hyunjoon Jee challenges the application for good faith settlement, filed June 27, 2019, between Plaintiff Enrique Alarcon and Defendants Arturo Vega Reyes, Donna Cisco, and Fernando Berrocal (“settling defendants”).

The burden of establishing that a settlement was not made in good faith falls on the contesting party, Mr. Jee. (Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6(d).) The party opposing an application for good faith settlement must demonstrate that the settlement is “out of the ballpark in relation to [the] factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute.” (Tech-Bilt Inc. v. Woodward Clyde Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 501; City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1261-1262.)

The Court considers a number of factors to determine whether settlement was made in good faith. (Tech-Bilt Inc. v. Woodward Clyde Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 498.) These factors are not to be rigidly applied. (North County Contractor's Assn. v. Touchstone Ins. Services (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 1085, 1090.

1. Approximation of plaintiff’s total recovery and settlor’s proportionate liability.

2. The amount paid in settlement.

3. Recognition that the settlor should pay less in settlement.

4. Allocation of the settlement proceeds.

5. The settlor’s financial condition and insurance policy limits.

6. Evidence of collusion, fraud or tortious conduct between the settlor and plaintiff.

7. The settlement must be within the reasonable range of the settlor’s share of liability.

Determination is based on information available at the time of settlement. The settlement should not be “grossly disproportionate” to what a reasonable person would estimate the settling party’s liability to be. (Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1349.)

Here, Jee contends the proposed settlement is not within reasonable range of the Settling Defendants’ share of liability. Pursuant to the settlement, settling defendants would pay $8,500. Jee contends Plaintiff’s discovery responses show his medical special damages total $15,990 and show he will need future medical care. (Memo. P&A, 4:6.)

Jee fails to provide analysis on what is the reasonable range of the settling defendants’ share of liability, arguing instead that the settling defendants have failed to provide evidence that the amount is in the ballpark. As previously noted, the burden is on Jee to show that the settlement is out of the ballpark or grossly disproportionate, not on the settling parties to prove that it is in the ballpark. In any event, given the facts and circumstances at issue here, the Court finds that the settlement is sufficiently in the ballpark. Further, the Court does not find that there was collusion.

The Court thus denies the motion to challenge the good faith of the settlement and finds the settlement to be in good faith. The settling parties are to provide a proposed order approving the good faith settlement.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC644803    Hearing Date: December 02, 2019    Dept: 2

On the court’s own motion, the hearing on the Motion to Challenge the Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement set for hearing on 12/2/19 is continued to 12/23/19 at 1:30 p.m. in Department SS-2. The due date for the opposition and reply is based on the original hearing date.