This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/28/2020 at 17:15:44 (UTC).

9561 SAWYER LLC VS GOLDENBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ET A

Case Summary

On 12/22/2017 9561 SAWYER LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against GOLDENBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ET A. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7991

  • Filing Date:

    12/22/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

9561 SAWYER LLC

CLEAN ENERGY STORAGE INC.

PV GURU INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ROE 1

Defendants and Cross Defendants

BALCHOWSKY MAX

CLEAN ENERGY STORAGE INC.

THOMAS TED

GOLDENBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

KHALSA JAI PAL SINGH

SURETEC INDEMNITY COMPANY

AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

GOLDENBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorneys

MILANI ANTHONY

MOORE JOEY

BUCHANAN NATASHA K

Cross Defendant Attorney

WALSH MICHAEL J.

 

Court Documents

Case Management Statement

10/18/2018: Case Management Statement

Amendment to Cross-Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

9/13/2019: Amendment to Cross-Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Separate Statement

1/16/2020: Separate Statement

Declaration - DECLARATION OF ALAN JOHNSTON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

1/16/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF ALAN JOHNSTON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

1/16/2020: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

1/30/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

2/13/2020: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

2/13/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER - REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF FINAL STATUS CONFERENC...)

4/28/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER - REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF FINAL STATUS CONFERENC...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER - REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF FINAL STATUS CONFERENC...) OF 04/28/2020

4/28/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER - REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF FINAL STATUS CONFERENC...) OF 04/28/2020

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

2/13/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT -

2/13/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT -

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

2/13/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT -

2/13/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT -

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

3/8/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY -

4/10/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY -

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

5/29/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

Minute Order -

5/31/2018: Minute Order -

39 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/21/2020
  • Hearing09/21/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department 48 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/16/2020
  • Hearing09/16/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 48 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/28/2020
  • Docketat 09:59 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Court Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/28/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order - regarding continuance of Final Status Conferenc...) of 04/28/2020); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/28/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order - regarding continuance of Final Status Conferenc...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 03/10/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/13/2020
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/13/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Goldenbridge Development Corporation (Cross-Complainant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/30/2020
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Goldenbridge Development Corporation (Cross-Complainant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/29/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
61 More Docket Entries
  • 02/13/2018
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • DocketREQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by 9561 Sawyer, LLC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/12/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/12/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by 9561 Sawyer, LLC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****7991    Hearing Date: April 23, 2021    Dept: 48

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

On October 18, 2018, Plaintiff 9561 Sawyer LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a first amended complaint against Defendants Goldenbridge Development Corporation, Jai Pal Singh Khalsa, Max Balchowsky, Suretec Indemnity Company, American Contractors Indemnity Company (“ACIC”), Clean Energy Storage, Inc., and Ted Thomas. Plaintiff later dismissed ACIC. Defendants Goldenbridge, Khalsa, and Balchowsky have now settled with Plaintiff for $110,000 and filed this application for determination of good faith settlement. No party objected.

Any party to an action with two or more joint tortfeasors may petition the court for a determination of the issue of the good faith of a settlement. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 877.6, subd. (a)(1).) The court’s approval of the settlement 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.) To demonstrate a lack of good faith, a 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.)

The motion sets out the background of this case and explains that Goldenbridge, Khalsa, and Balchowsky, and/or their insurer, will pay Plaintiff $110,000.00 in full and final settlement of all claims Plaintiff has against them and Suretec. In exchange, Plaintiff will dismiss all claims against them with prejudice and provide a complete release. Goldenbridge will also dismiss its cross-complaint’s claims against Plaintiff with prejudice. There is no evidence of the settlors’ financial condition or insurance policy limits. The amount of settlement including the release of the cross-complainant’s claims against Plaintiff is a reasonable share of the settlors’ liability, especially considering the risk of trial. The parties reached this agreement in a mediation after an investigation and discovery. This is evidence that the settlement is not a result of collusion, fraud or tortious conduct.

Based on the record presented and the lack of any objection, the Court GRANTS the application, finds this settlement was made in good faith, and orders that any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor is barred from asserting further claims against Goldenbridge, Khalsa, and Balchowsky for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are STRONGLY encouraged to appear remotely.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CLEAN ENERGY STORAGE INC is a litigant

Latest cases where SURETEC INDEMNITY COMPANY A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases where American Contractors Indemnity Company is a litigant