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.
Pending - Other Pending
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
LAURA A. SEIGLE
AMY D. HOGUE
DOES 1 TO 50
SOVEREIGN VENTURES INC.
AROD GENERAL CONSTRUCTION INC. DOE 1
EMRANI JACOB ESQ.
MORIARTY KATHLEEN MARGARET ESQ.
MALACHOWSKI MITCHELL B
WALDINGER LAWRENCE JOSEPH ESQ.
12/16/2016: COMPLAINT?PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH
8/10/2017: CROSS-COMPLAINT PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH
8/10/2017: NOTICE OF DEPOSIT OF JURY FEES
8/25/2017: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY AND OF RELATED INFORMATION BY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT SOVEREIGN VENTURES, INC.
4/30/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
5/15/2018: Minute Order
5/21/2018: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES
7/6/2018: UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL;AND ETC.
7/6/2018: Minute Order
9/5/2018: DEFENDANT SOVEREIGN VENTURES INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION; ETC
9/5/2018: DECLARATION OF KATHLEEN MORIARTY
10/17/2018: Other -
2/28/2019: Minute Order
3/14/2019: Ex Parte Application
Answer; Filed by AROD, INC (Cross-Complainant)Read MoreRead Less
Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Saharai Alcaraz (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's MotionRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's MotionRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (To Continue Trial) - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Jury Trial; Final Status Conference; Hearing on Ex Parte Appl...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Ex Parte Application (To Continue Trial); Filed by Saharai Alcaraz (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's MotionRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 1:30 PM in Department 7, Amy D. Hogue, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel ((Motion to Compel)) - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Cross-Complaint; Filed by Sovereign Ventures, Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
CIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
Summons on Cross ComplaintRead MoreRead Less
Notice; Filed by Sovereign Ventures, Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
First Amended Complaint; Filed by Saharai Alcaraz (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATHRead MoreRead Less
ComplaintRead MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by Saharai Alcaraz (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Saharai Alcaraz (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Civil Case Cover SheetRead MoreRead Less
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.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases