This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/11/2022 at 14:56:11 (UTC).

ADRIAN JOHNSON ADAIR ET AL VS IDEAL TRANSIT INC

Case Summary

On 02/23/2018 ADRIAN JOHNSON ADAIR filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against IDEAL TRANSIT 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 YOLANDA OROZCO, LAURA A. SEIGLE and EDWARD B. MORETON. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5741

  • Filing Date:

    02/23/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

YOLANDA OROZCO

LAURA A. SEIGLE

EDWARD B. MORETON

 

Party Details

Petitioners and Plaintiffs

ADAIR ADRIAN JOHNSON

ADAIR KATELYN

Respondents and Defendants

IDEAL TRANIST INC

DOES 1 TO 25

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

MITCHELL TIMOTHY P. ESQ.

DOLLISON ALLAN LEE

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

SANTA ROMANA MARK V. ESQ.

SANTA-ROMANA MARK VILAR III

 

Court Documents

Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment

8/16/2021: Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

3/1/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

Judgment - JUDGMENT [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT UPON ORDER GRANTING OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

3/15/2021: Judgment - JUDGMENT [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT UPON ORDER GRANTING OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ...)

12/14/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ...)

Separate Statement

12/22/2020: Separate Statement

Motion for Summary Judgment

12/22/2020: Motion for Summary Judgment

Motion to Enforce Settlement

8/4/2020: Motion to Enforce Settlement

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT)) OF 12/07/2020

12/7/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT)) OF 12/07/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

12/7/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: COVID-19)

4/28/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: COVID-19)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: COVID-19) OF 04/28/2020

4/28/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: COVID-19) OF 04/28/2020

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE)

2/26/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE)

Affidavit - AFFIDAVIT DEFENDANT IDEAL TRANSIT, INC.S PAGE AND LINE DESIGNATION FOR DEPOSITIONS

2/26/2020: Affidavit - AFFIDAVIT DEFENDANT IDEAL TRANSIT, INC.S PAGE AND LINE DESIGNATION FOR DEPOSITIONS

Notice of Settlement - NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE

2/26/2020: Notice of Settlement - NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE) OF 02/26/2020

2/26/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ENTIRE CASE) OF 02/26/2020

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF PLAINITFF'S DESIGNATED MEDICAL EXPERT, DR. ARTHUR KREITENBERG

2/18/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF PLAINITFF'S DESIGNATED MEDICAL EXPERT, DR. ARTHUR KREITENBERG

Witness List

2/20/2020: Witness List

Statement of the Case

2/21/2020: Statement of the Case

43 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/16/2021
  • DocketAcknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment; Filed by Adrian Johnson Adair (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 27; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2021
  • DocketJudgment ([PROPOSED] JUDGMENT UPON ORDER GRANTING OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT); Filed by Ideal Tranist Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2021
  • Docketat 2:30 PM in Department 27; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 27; (OSC RE Dismissal) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2020
  • DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by Ideal Tranist Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2020
  • DocketMotion for Summary Judgment; Filed by Ideal Tranist Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 27; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 27; Hearing on Motion to Enforce Settlement - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
68 More Docket Entries
  • 05/15/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Ideal Tranist Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Ideal Tranist Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2018
  • DocketDEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2018
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2018
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Adrian Johnson Adair (Plaintiff); Katelyn Adair (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Adrian Johnson Adair (Plaintiff); Katelyn Adair (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet /CoverSheet Addendum

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC695741    Hearing Date: March 01, 2021    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

ADRIAN JOHNSON ADAIR, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

IDEAL TRANSIT, INC., et al.

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

.BC695741

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S

Dept27

3:30 p.m.

March 1, 2021

I. INTRODUCTION

On February 23, 2018, Plaintiffs Adrian Johnson Adair (“Adrian”) and Katelyn Adair (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant Ideal Transit, Inc.  On December 14, 2020, Defendant’s motion to enforce a settlement December Defendant filed this Motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the parties have entered into an enforceable settlement agreement. 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Defendant claims that on February 26, 2020, it made a settlement offer to Plaintiffs, which was accepted by Plaintiff’s counsel.  (Defendant’s Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) Nos. -3.)  Defendant’s counsel sent a proposed release to Plaintiff’s counsel, who agreed to have his clients sign the release and send them back, once executed.  (UMF Nos. 4-5.)  

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

Any party may move for summary judgment in any action or proceeding if the party contends that (1) the action or proceeding has no merit or (2) there is no defense to the action or proceeding.  Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(o).In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent’s claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.”  (Hinesley Oakshade

V. DISCUSSION

When moving for summary judgment based on an affirmative defense, a defendant has the initial burden to show that undisputed facts support each element of the affirmative defense.  (Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare 91 Cal.App.4th 454, 467-468.)  

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ action each Plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement Defendant submits several emails between defense counsel and Plaintiff’s counsel as well as two unexecuted settlement agreements.

Defendant contends the settlement agreements are enforceable as contracts because there was a valid offer and acceptance Defendant cites to Stewart v. Preston PipelineInc. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1565 for the proposiiton that a settlement agreement that identifies the parties, the facially evidenced mutual consent had a lawful object of resolving litigation, and contained mutual promises was enforceable, and that execution of the agreement by counsel was authorized.  (Stewart, 134 Cal.App.4th 1586.)   Here, the settlement agreements state that each (either $20,000 or $30,000) with a specific party , and a release and dismissal of all class and individual claims . (Def.’s Exs. 2, 3.)  These terms, Defendants contends, are sufficient to create an enforceable settlement agreement.  

Although the attached settlement agreements have not been signed by Plaintiffs, Defendant relies on the principles of agency law as well as the holding in Stewart to argue that Plaintiff’s counsel effectively and validly accepted the settlement offer on Plaintiffs’ behalf.  Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs are bound by their agent’s actions.  

In Stewart, a defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the parties had agreed to settle a dispute plaintiff, plaintiff’s attorney and the defendant’s attorney; Stewartsupra, 134 Cal.App.4th at 1569.)  The rejected the plaintiff’s argument defendant.  Instead, the Stewart found that the defendant established from the face of the agreement an objective and outward manifestation of mutual assent because the agreement was “signed by both plaintiff and his attorney, and there was no indication from the document that it was conditional or that plaintiff did not intend to be bound by its terms. Id. at p. 1587.)   Critically, the Stewart court also specifically found that the defendants met their moving burden to establish mutual consent because the defendants’ insurer (Id. at p. 1586.)  

Defendant attaches emails between defense counsel and Plaintiff’s counsel, Allan Dollison.  In an email dated February 26, 2020, defense counsel Mark Santa Romana writes to “confirm [their] conversation wherein [Plaintiff’s counsel] indicated that the Plaintiffs have acepted the $20,000 and $30,000 offers made to Adrian and Katelyn, respectively.”  (Santa Romana Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1.)  Mr. Santa Romana also stated that he would inform the Court that the case settled.  Ibid.

After the releases were sent to Plaintiff’s counsel on February 26, 2020, defense counsel’s office followed up on March 30, 2020 requesting a status update on whether the releases were signed.  (Def.’s Ex. 4.)  A response from Plaintiff’s counsel’s litigation paralegal states that the matter would be looked into.  Ibid.)  she would check on this matter on Monday.  (Ibid.)   defense counsel’s office reminding Plaintiff’s counsel that costs were being incurred from keeping the file open and that they would like to close it as soon as possible.  (Def.’s Exs. 4-5.) 

On April 21, 2020, Mr. Dollison states that he has had his law clerk reach out to an unidentified “her” as the law clerk worked closely with the Plantiff on this case.  Additional emails from June through July reflect repeated inquiries from defense counsel.  (See Def.’s Ex. 5.)  Plaintiff’s counsel gave a single substantive response : “We do not have them back from the client yet.”  Ibid.

Defendant has met its moving burden to establish the elements of a settlement agreement even if the agreements had not been signed by all parties.  Plaintiff’s counsel represented that his clients accepted the offer (Ex. 1.)  

Plaintiffs do not oppose this Motion and it is undisputed that an enforceable settlement agreement exists between the parties.  

VI. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.  

Moving party to give notice.  

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send n email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention submit

Dated this 1st March 21

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC695741    Hearing Date: December 14, 2020    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

ADRIAN JOHNSON ADAIR; KATELYN ADAIR,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

IDEAL TRANSIT, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

.: BC695741

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT IDEAL TRANSIT, INC.’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

December 14, 2020

On February 23, 2018, Plaintiffs Adrian Johnson Adair (“Adrian”) and Katelyn Adair (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant Ideal Transit, Inc. .

“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.  If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.)  

Here, the releases attached as Exhibits 2 and 3 provide that Adrian will prepare and file a Request for Dismissal of Action with prejudice, execute the releases, file a Notice of Settlement, provide instructions for the settlement check; and provide the signed W-9 for counselThe request for dismissal will not be filed until Plaintiffs’ counsel receives the settlement check.  

In hearing a section 664.6 motion, the trial court may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment.  (Bowers v. Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 724, 732.)  The court may interpret the terms and conditions to settlement (Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566), but the court may not create material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810).

Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute.  (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.)  The party seeking to enforce a settlement “must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties’ (§ 664.6) or was made orally before the court.  [Citation.]”  (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304 [holding that a letter confirming the essential terms of a settlement agreement was not a “writing signed by the parties” sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 664.6].)

“Parties” under CCP § 664.6 means the litigants themselves, and not their attorneys, must expressly consent to settlement.  (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 586 [“we conclude that the term ‘parties’ as used in section 664.6 means the litigants themselves, and does not include their attorneys of record”].) n exception to this general rule exists were a liability insurer providing a defense without reservation of rights is agreeing to settle the claims within policy limits.  (Fiege v. Cooke (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1354; Robertson v. Chen (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1295-1296.)  In such a case, the signature of the insurance provider is sufficient and the signature of the insured is not required.

Here, there is no evidence of an enforceable agreement set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties’ or made orally before the court. At most, Defendant attaches an email from defense counsel Mark Santa Romana that memorializes a conversation with Plaintiffs counsel Allan Dollison in which Mr. Dollison apparently “indicated that the Plaintiffs have accepted the $20,000 and $3,000 offers made to Adrian and Katelyn.”  Defense counsel states in the email that he “will appear in Court tomorrow and inform the Court that the case settled.”  (Def.’s Ex. 1.)  The releases attached as Exhibits 2 and 3 are not executed and do not evince an agreement that satisfies the statutory requirements of section 664.6.  Furthermore, there is no evidence that Defendant has complied with its obligations under the agreement.  For instance, there is no settlement check, signed and issued by Defendant’s insurer and endorsed for deposit by Plaintiff’s counsel, which would qualify as a writing signed by the parties.  (Gallo v. Getz (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 329, 333 [letters of the settlement agreement signed only by plaintiff’s attorney were not sufficient under Section 664.6, but the draft issued by the insurer payable to plaintiff and his attorney, signed by insurer and drawn from insurer’s bank, and endorsed by plaintiff and his attorney in final settlement of the claim was sufficient to be a writing signed by both parties].)  

The Motion to enforce settlement is DENIED without prejudice. 

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 as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

Dated this 14th day of December 2020

Hon. Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where IDEAL TRANIST INC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SANTA-ROMANA MARK VILAR