Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/06/2019 at 11:33:21 (UTC).

JOSEPH AND KATHLEEN ANDERSON VS HUNTER BROOKE INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/13/2015 JOSEPH AND KATHLEEN ANDERSON filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against HUNTER BROOKE INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are HOWARD L. HALM, STUART M. RICE and DEIRDRE HILL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8443

  • Filing Date:

    01/13/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

HOWARD L. HALM

STUART M. RICE

DEIRDRE HILL

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

ANDERSON JOSEPH AND KATHLEEN

JOSEPH AND KATHLEEN ANDERSON

Defendants and Respondents

B-RADIANT HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING

B-RADIANT HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING I

BALDWIN CONSTRUCTION

BALDWIN DAVID S

DAVID S. BALDWIN

DOES 1-50

G.E. PLUMBING INC.

G.E. PUMBING INC

GLANTZ FAMILY TRUST

GLANTZ WILLIAM AND PHYLLIS

HUNTER BROOKE INC

HUNTER BROOKE INC. DBA BALDWIN CONSTRUCT

LEWIS MARSHALL

MARSHALL LEWIS

WILLIAM AND PHYLLIS GLANTZ

LUCKY'S GLASS INC.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

B-RADIANT HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING I

Cross Defendant

ROES 1-25

Other

HENNING STEPHEN J.

24 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

HAMMONS & BALDINO LLP

RYAN W. BALDINO

ROVENS DOUGLAS JOHN

BAGHDASSARIAN ALEC J.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

SPIERER WOODWARD CORBALIS & GOLDBERG

ROBERT GROSFELD ESQ.

SCHACHTER ROBERT B. ESQ.

PENNINGTON AMY K.

HITCHCOCK BOWMAN & SCHACHTER

ZVONICEK PHILIP C. ESQ.

GIBBS GIDEN LOCHER & TURNER LLP

ETKIN ALLISON B.

HANGER LEVINE & STEINBERG

HENNING STEPHEN JOHN

STEVENSON JILLIAN NICOLE-MORPHIS

HUNTER REBECCA ELIZABETH

GROSFELD ROBERT

Other Attorneys

LAWRENCE LISA IMELDA

 

Court Documents

Ex Parte Application

7/25/2018: Ex Parte Application

Notice of Change of Handling Attorney

8/24/2018: Notice of Change of Handling Attorney

Notice

9/4/2018: Notice

Notice

10/22/2018: Notice

Motion to Compel

11/19/2018: Motion to Compel

Motion to Compel

11/19/2018: Motion to Compel

Opposition

12/14/2018: Opposition

Notice of Motion

12/17/2018: Notice of Motion

Certificate of Mailing for

1/4/2019: Certificate of Mailing for

Order

1/15/2019: Order

Objection

1/23/2019: Objection

Notice

1/28/2019: Notice

Notice

4/25/2019: Notice

Declaration

6/3/2019: Declaration

SUMMONS

1/13/2015: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR: BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT; ETC

1/13/2015: COMPLAINT FOR: BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT; ETC

Minute Order

9/1/2015: Minute Order

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS & COMPLAINT

9/22/2015: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS & COMPLAINT

108 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/06/2019
  • Notice (of Recommendation of Mediator Re: Continuance of trial date); Filed by David S Baldwin (Defendant); Hunter Brooke, Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Defendants/Cross-Complainants Hunter Brooke, Inc. DBA Baldwin Construction and David Baldwin's Notice of Motion and Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement; Filed by David S Baldwin (Defendant); HUNTER BROOKE, INC. dba BALDWIN CONSTRUCT (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Declaration (in Support of Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement); Filed by David S Baldwin (Defendant); HUNTER BROOKE, INC. dba BALDWIN CONSTRUCT (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Request for Judicial Notice; Filed by David S Baldwin (Defendant); HUNTER BROOKE, INC. dba BALDWIN CONSTRUCT (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Notice (Notice Of Rescheduled Hearing On Plaintiff Joseph Andersons Notice Of Motion And Motion To Set Aside Judgment Entered 9/07/18); Filed by JOSEPH ANDERSON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Notice (Notice Of Rescheduled Hearing Regarding Plaintiff Joseph Andersons Notice Of Motion And Motion For Relief From Matters Deemed Admitted); Filed by JOSEPH ANDERSON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order Due to the pending Appeal,) of 05/08/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
470 More Docket Entries
  • 05/22/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS & COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS & COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by KATHLEEN ANDERSON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS & COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2015
  • COMPLAINT FOR: BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2015
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2015
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Anderson, Joseph and Kathleen (Plaintiff); JOSEPH ANDERSON (Plaintiff); KATHLEEN ANDERSON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC568443    Hearing Date: January 19, 2021    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka

Department B

Tuesday, January 19, 2021

Calendar No. 8

PROCEEDINGS

Joseph and Kathleen Anderson v. Hunter Brooke, Inc., et al.

BC568443

  1. G.E. Plumbing, Inc.’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

    TENTATIVE RULING

    G.E. Plumbing, Inc.’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is granted.

    Defendant G.E. Plumbing, Inc. (“GEP”) moves for an order finding that the settlement between Plaintiff Joseph Anderson and Defendant GEP was made in good faith pursuant to CCP §§ 877 and 877.6.

    “[Code of Civil Procedure] Section 877.6 was enacted by the Legislature in 1980 to establish a statutory procedure for determining if a settlement by an alleged joint tortfeasor has been entered into in good faith and to provide a bar to claims of other alleged joint tortfeasors for equitable contribution or partial or comparative indemnity when good faith is shown.” IRM Corp. v. Carlson (1986) 179 Cal. App. 3d 94, 104.

    CCP § 877.6(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that, on noticed motion, “[a]ny party to an action wherein it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff . . . and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors . . . .” “A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” CCP § 877.6(c). Although a determination that a settlement was in good faith does not discharge any other party from liability, “it shall reduce the claims against the others in the amount stipulated” by the settlement. CCP § 877(a).

    In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499, the California Supreme Court identified the following nonexclusive factors courts are to consider in determining if a settlement is in good faith under section 877.6: “a rough approximation of plaintiffs' total recovery and the settlor's proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial. Other relevant considerations include the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants, as well as the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.”

    The evaluation of whether a settlement was made in good faith is required to “be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement.” Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal.3d at 499. “‘[A] defendant’s settlement figure must not be grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person, at the time of the settlement, would estimate the settling defendant’s liability to be.’ [Citation.]” Id. at 499.

    “The party asserting the lack of good faith, who has the burden of proof on that issue (§ 877.6, subd. (d)), should be permitted to demonstrate, if he can, that the settlement is so far ‘out of the ballpark’ in relation to these factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute. Such a demonstration would establish that the proposed settlement was not a ‘settlement made in good faith’ within the terms of section 877.6.” Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal.3d at 499-500.

    “Thus, Tech-Bilt held that in determining whether a settlement was made in good faith for purposes of section 877.6, a key factor a trial court should consider is whether the amount paid in settlement bears a reasonable relationship to the settlor’s proportionate share of liability. (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 499–500 . . . .) This is because one of the main goals of section 877.6 is ‘allocating costs equitably among multiple tortfeasors.’ (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 502 . . . .).” TSI Seismic Tenant Space, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 159, 166. “Accordingly, a court not only looks at the alleged tortfeasor's potential liability to the plaintiff, but it must also consider the culpability of the tortfeasor vis-à-vis other parties alleged to be responsible for the same injury. Potential liability for indemnity to a nonsettling defendant is an important consideration for the trial court in determining whether to approve a settlement by an alleged tortfeasor. [Citation.]” Id. at 166.

    No written opposition has been filed to this motion. When a motion for determination of good faith settlement is uncontested, a “barebones” motion that sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case, is sufficient to support a good faith determination. City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1261. Moving Defendant has provided evidence showing the amount of the settlement and a brief background of the case. (Declaration, Philip C. Zvonicek, ¶¶ 1-10.) The Court finds that this evidence is sufficient to support a good faith determination.

    Therefore, Defendant’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is granted.

    Defendant’s settlement with Plaintiff in the amount of $210,500 is deemed to be in good faith.

    Because the Court has determined that the settlement was made in good faith, the determination “shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6(c).

    Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where BALDWIN CONSTRUCTION is a litigant

Latest cases where LUCKY`S GLASS INC is a litigant