On 11/10/2014 GABRIELLE ALBERICI filed a Contract - Professional Negligence lawsuit against VINCENT DAVIS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Glendale Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are OTHER DISTRICT JUDGE, LAURA A. MATZ and JOHN P. DOYLE. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Disposed - Dismissed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
OTHER DISTRICT JUDGE
LAURA A. MATZ
JOHN P. DOYLE
LAW OFFICES OF VICENT DAVIS
LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT DAVIS
LIOSI STEPHEN J.
CHRISTOPHER E. ROLIN ESQ.
NEWMAN & HORTON LLP
MILLER LAW ASSOCIATES APC
CAROL BAIDAS ESQ.
LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT DAVIS
Court documents are not available for this case.
Request (FOR COPIES - 5 PAGES WAIVED ); Filed by RequestorRead MoreRead Less
Request for Dismissal (WITH PREJUDICE ENTIRE ACTION OF ALL PARTIES AND ALL CAUSES OF ACTION (ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILDREN) ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Request for Dismissal (WITH PREJUDICE ENTIRE ACTION OF ALL PARTIES AND ALL CAUSES OF ACTION ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Request (FOR COPIES - 15 PAGES ); Filed by RequestorRead MoreRead Less
at 09:30 am in Department NCGE, Other District Judge, Presiding; Jury Trial - MistrialRead MoreRead Less
Notice (OF CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT ); Filed by Attorney for DefendantRead MoreRead Less
at 09:30 am in Department NCGE, Other District Judge, Presiding; Jury Trial - Full Day of Trial HeldRead MoreRead Less
Exhibit List (PLAINTIFFS' AND DEFENDANTS' FINAL JOINT TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Jury Question (JUROR #8 ); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Jury Question (Juror #163741620 ); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Order-Court Fee Waiver (GRANTED AS TO DANIELLE K. LITTLE ); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Hearing on Demurrer (AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMP; MPA IN SUPPORT THEREOF ); Filed by Attorney for DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Request for Judicial Notice; Filed by Attorney for DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Motion (AND MOTION TO STRIKE; MPA IN SUPPORT THEREOF ); Filed by Attorney for DefendantRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 am in Department NCGD, John P. Doyle, Presiding; Conference-Case Management (2) OSC REGARDING DISMISSAL/SERVICEBY PUBLICATION) - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 am in Department NCGD, John P. Doyle, Presiding; OSC-Failure to Appear (OSC RE: DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TOAPPEAR ON 01/26/15;) - OSC DischargedRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 am in Department NCGD, John P. Doyle, Presiding; Order to Show Cause (FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH TRIAL COURT DELAY REDUCTION ACT) - No AppearanceRead MoreRead Less
OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Complaint filed-Summons Issued (RECEIPT: BUR529537012 11-10-14 ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: EC063256 Hearing Date: December 27, 2019 Dept: E
MOTION FOR PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST
Case: Gabrielle Alberici, et al. v. Vince Davis, et al. (EC 063256)
Plaintiff Gabrielle Alberici’s and Nicholas Gross’s Motion for Mandatory Prejudgment Interest is DENIED.
On 9/27/19, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to enter judgment and directed plaintiffs to submit a proposed judgment in their favor in the amount of $375,000. Plaintiffs defied that Court order. Instead, plaintiffs filed a motion for “partial reconsideration” of the Court’s 9/27/19 decision and for pre-judgment interest of $1,882.32. On 11/1/19, the Court denied the request for reconsideration, awarded the requested pre-judgment interest, and ordered plaintiffs to submit a proposed judgment in accordance therewith. Plaintiffs defied that Court order. Instead, plaintiffs brought the instant motion seeking $186,678.08 in prejudgment interest on the $375,000 amount set forth in the 11/1/19 order, calculated from the date the Complaint was filed (11/10/14) to the date of this Court’s order (11/1/19).
Putting aside the fact that it would appear no damages were ascertainable for purposes of calculating pre-judgment interest at least until the parties reached their confidential settlement agreement on 5/16/18, the Court finds plaintiffs waived any claim for prejudgment interest on damages as claimed in their 11/10/14 Complaint. The 5/16/18 settlement agreement provides for a release of all obligations arising from this action. The “Mutual Release” in that agreement states, in relevant part: “This Agreement resolves any claims for relief that have ever been alleged and that could have been alleged, no matter how characterized, including, without limitation, claims for compensatory damages, damages for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty damages, legal malpractice damages, bad faith damages, reliance damages, liquidated damages, damages for humiliation, embarrassment and/or emotional distress, punitive damages, costs and attorney's fees related to or arising from the PARTIES’ RELATIONSHIP and the Action.” (Proposed Order, Ex. 3 [Settlement Agreement ¶ 1b].) Accordingly, plaintiffs are not entitled to pre-judgment interest as sought in the Complaint. (See Villacres v. ABM Industries Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562, 589 [release of “all claims and causes of action” in settlement agreement must be given a comprehensive scope].)
By contrast, the Mutual Release does not necessarily appear to waive pre-judgment interest claims subsequently arising from defendants’ failure to make timely installment payments in accordance with the settlement agreement. For this reason, the Court does not revisit its prior decision to grant plaintiffs’ request for $1,882.32 in pre-judgment interest – relief defendants improperly seek in their untimely opposition to the instant motion. (See Opp. at 5 [“Defendants implore the court to reconsider its decision to grant $1,882.32 in prejudgment interest . . .].)
Plaintiffs are hereby ORDRED to submit by no later than 1/10/20 a Proposed Judgment for $376,882.32, in accordance with this Court’s orders in this matter. The Court also orders plaintiffs to show cause why they should not be sanctioned $1,882.32 for failure to submit proposed judgments as twice ordered by this Court. The hearing on such order to show cause is set for 1/29/20, at 8:30 AM, in Department E of the Glendale Courthouse. If the Court were to receive a proposed judgment and enter judgment thereon prior to 1/29/20, the hearing will come off calendar and the order to show cause shall be discharged.
Case Number: EC063256 Hearing Date: November 01, 2019 Dept: E
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
MOTION FOR PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST
Case. Gabrielle Alberici, et al. v. Vince Davis, et al. (EC 063256)
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration is DENIED.
Plaintiffs have failed to show any new or different facts which were not known to plaintiffs or could not have been presented to the Court at the previous hearing on which the motion is based, as required under CCP § 1008. The documents submitted in support of the motion all predate the previous hearing. Moreover, even if the Court were to reconsider its ruling in light of the arguments made in the moving papers, the Court’s ruling would not change. Essentially, the argument now is that paragraph 19 of the Settlement Agreement permitted amendment. While that is true, that provision permits amendment “only upon an agreement in writing.” No written amendment to the settlement agreement has been put before the Court, and the declaration of Vincent Davis in which he states he “previously agreed and stipulated to pay an additional $7,500 as penalty for late payments” does not substitute for an “agreement in writing” as required by paragraph 19.
Defendants’ request for sanctions under CCP § 128.7 is DENIED. Defendants have not complied with the procedural requirements of that section, as defendants have not permitted the mandatory safe harbor to allow plaintiffs to withdraw their motion.
Plaintiffs’ UNOPPOSED Motion for Mandatory Prejudgment Interest is GRANTED. The judgment shall include $1,882.32 in prejudgment interest. The judgment shall also provide that post-judgment interest is to be calculated at the legal rate.
Plaintiffs to submit proposed form of judgment.