This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/07/2019 at 01:21:08 (UTC).

SAHARAI ALCARAZ VS SOVEREIGN VENTURES INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/30/2016 SAHARAI ALCARAZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against SOVEREIGN VENTURES 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 LAURA A. SEIGLE and AMY D. HOGUE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2079

  • Filing Date:

    08/30/2016

  • 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

LAURA A. SEIGLE

AMY D. HOGUE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

ALCARAZ SAHARAI

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 50

SOVEREIGN VENTURES INC.

AROD GENERAL CONSTRUCTION INC. DOE 1

Cross Plaintiff

AROD INC

Cross Defendant

MOES 1-100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

EMRANI JACOB ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

MORIARTY KATHLEEN MARGARET ESQ.

Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

MALACHOWSKI MITCHELL B

WALDINGER LAWRENCE JOSEPH ESQ.

 

Court Documents

COMPLAINT?PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

12/16/2016: COMPLAINT?PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

Unknown

8/10/2017: Unknown

Unknown

8/10/2017: Unknown

CROSS-COMPLAINT PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

8/10/2017: CROSS-COMPLAINT PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

NOTICE OF DEPOSIT OF JURY FEES

8/10/2017: NOTICE OF DEPOSIT OF JURY FEES

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY AND OF RELATED INFORMATION BY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT SOVEREIGN VENTURES, INC.

8/25/2017: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY AND OF RELATED INFORMATION BY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT SOVEREIGN VENTURES, INC.

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

4/30/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Minute Order

5/15/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

5/21/2018: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

Unknown

5/21/2018: Unknown

UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL;AND ETC.

7/6/2018: UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL;AND ETC.

Minute Order

7/6/2018: Minute Order

DEFENDANT SOVEREIGN VENTURES INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION; ETC

9/5/2018: DEFENDANT SOVEREIGN VENTURES INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION; ETC

DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN MORIARTY

9/5/2018: DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN MORIARTY

Other -

10/17/2018: Other -

Minute Order

2/28/2019: Minute Order

Ex Parte Application

3/14/2019: Ex Parte Application

Answer

4/10/2019: Answer

20 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/10/2019
  • Answer; Filed by AROD, INC (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Saharai Alcaraz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (To Continue Trial) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Jury Trial; Final Status Conference; Hearing on Ex Parte Appl...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (To Continue Trial); Filed by Saharai Alcaraz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2018
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 7, Amy D. Hogue, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel ((Motion to Compel)) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
56 More Docket Entries
  • 08/10/2017
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by Sovereign Ventures, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2017
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2017
  • Summons on Cross Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2017
  • Notice; Filed by Sovereign Ventures, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2016
  • First Amended Complaint; Filed by Saharai Alcaraz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2016
  • COMPLAINT PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2016
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2016
  • Summons; Filed by Saharai Alcaraz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Saharai Alcaraz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2016
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC632079    Hearing Date: December 11, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

On August 30, 2016, plaintiff Saharai Alcaraz filed this action against defendant Sovereign Ventures, Inc. for premises liability relating to a September 29, 2014 slip and fall on wet paint at her apartment complex. Defendant’s property management company had hired a general contractor, AROD, Inc. (“AROD”) to paint the premises. Defendant offered $40,000 to Plaintiff to settle the case and now seeks a determination of good faith settlement. The motion is unopposed.

The Court must approve any settlement entered into by less than all joint tortfeasors or co-obligors. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6.) This requirement furthers two sometimes-competing policies: (1) the equitable sharing of costs among the parties at fault, and (2) the encouragement of settlements. (Erreca’s v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1487.) If the settlement is made in good faith, the Court “shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor . . . for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (c).) The non-settling tortfeasors or obligors bear the burden of demonstrating the absence of good faith in the settlement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).)

To demonstrate a lack of good faith, the non-settling party must show that the settlement is so far “out of the ballpark” as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of Section 877.6. (Nutrition Now, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 209, 213.) The Court will typically consider: (1) the plaintiff’s (roughly) approximated total recovery; (2) the settlor’s share of liability; (3) the size of the settlement at issue; (4) the distribution of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (5) the usual discount value when plaintiffs settle before trial; the settlor’s financial condition and insurance policy limits; and (6) whether there is evidence of “collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.” (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.) These factors will be evaluated accordingly to what information is available at the time of settlement. (Ibid.)

“When no one objects, the barebones motion which sets forth the ground for good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is sufficient” for the Court to grant a motion for determination of good faith settlement. (City of Grand Terrace, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d at p. 1261.) However, “[i]f contested, declarations by the nonsettlor should be filed which in many cases could require the moving party to file responsive counter declarations to negate the lack of good faith asserted by the nonsettling contesting party.” (Ibid.)

Defendant submits a declaration with a brief background of the case explaining Defendant’s purported liability and AROD’s involvement. Plaintiff incurred $101,726.33 in medical expenses on a lien basis, and a large part of that expense was exploratory surgery. The $40,000 settlement is a rough approximation of its potential liability and within the “ballpark” because the amount of medical expenses on a lien basis is not necessary the reasonable value of the medical services, and AROD as the contractor likely shares some if not all of the potential liability.

Defendant’s unopposed motion is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.