This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/18/2019 at 01:53:45 (UTC).

CELIA RUIZ VS RECANA SOLUTIONS LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/28/2018 a Labor - Other Labor case was filed by CELIA RUIZ against RECANA SOLUTIONS LLC in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0039

  • Filing Date:

    03/28/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

RUIZ CELIA

Respondents and Defendants

RECANA LLC

DOES 1 TO 20

SIMPLY FRESH FOODS INC.

RECANA SOLUTIONS LLC

 

Court Documents

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

8/21/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Minute Order

8/29/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RULING RE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

9/5/2018: NOTICE OF RULING RE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Notice of Motion

12/28/2018: Notice of Motion

Notice

2/5/2019: Notice

Notice

2/7/2019: Notice

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

2/11/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Declaration

2/11/2019: Declaration

Proof of Service by Mail

2/11/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

2/11/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Order

2/20/2019: Order

Cross-Complaint

2/20/2019: Cross-Complaint

Notice

5/15/2019: Notice

Declaration

5/21/2019: Declaration

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

6/26/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT

7/3/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/23/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

SUMMONS

3/28/2018: SUMMONS

49 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/11/2019
  • at 08:33 AM in Department 24; (REPORT) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Legacy Event Type : REPORT)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2019
  • Motion for Summary Judgment; Filed by Simply Fresh Foods, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2019
  • Separate Statement; Filed by Simply Fresh Foods, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2019
  • Objection (OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF ALEX STILES PURSUANT TO CCP 2025.410(a)); Filed by Recana Solutions, LLC (Defendant); Recana LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Notice of Ruling ((Amended)); Filed by Celia Ruiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • Objection (OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF ALEX STILES PURSUANT TO CCP 2025.410(a)); Filed by Recana Solutions, LLC (Defendant); Recana LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Celia Ruiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 24; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (Production of Documents) - Held - Advanced and Heard

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 24; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (Form Interrogatories) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
76 More Docket Entries
  • 05/02/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Celia Ruiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Celia Ruiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOV'T CODE 12940 ET SEQ.; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Celia Ruiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC700039    Hearing Date: March 13, 2020    Dept: 24

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Simply Fresh Inc.’s motion to determine good faith settlement is CONTINUED to April 21, 2020.

On March 28, 2018, Plaintiff Celia Ruiz filed the instant employment action against Defendants Recana Solutions LLC, Recana LLC (collectively “Recana”), and Simply Fresh Foods, Inc. (“Simply Fresh”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants hired Plaintiff to work as a general laborer. Plaintiff was assigned to work at Simply Fresh and worked in production and packaging. Plaintiffs job duties primarily consisted of working on an assembly line where she placed food items such as salsa, tacos, guacamole, beans and other food items on plates as they passed by on a conveyor belt. Her duties also included packing the prepared plates and placing them in boxes that were then sent to be palletized for shipment. Plaintiff performed all of Plaintiffs job duties satisfactorily until she was wrongfully terminated on July 13, 2017. Plaintiff alleges eight causes of action for: 1) discrimination; 2) retaliation; 3) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation; 4) failure to provide reasonable accommodations; 5) failure to engage in a good faith interactive process; 6) wrongful termination; 7) declaratory judgment; and 8) failure to permit inspection of personnel and payroll records.

On February 20, 2019, SF filed a cross-complaint against Recana for indemnity, apportionment of fault, declaratory relief, and express indemnity.

On January 29, 2020, Simply Fresh filed the instant motion to determine good faith settlement between Plaintiff and Simply Fresh. No opposition was filed.

Legal Standard

In an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt, a party to that action may file a motion seeking a determination from the court that the settlement between the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors was made in good faith. (CCP § 877.6(a).) The notice of motion or application for good faith determination must list each party and pleading or portion of pleading affected by the settlement and the date on which the affected pleading was filed. (CRC Rule 3.1382.)

The California Supreme Court in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, established the standard for determining whether a settlement was made in good faith. Under Tech-Bilt, the following factors are considered: (1) a rough approximation of plaintiff’s total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (4) a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial; (5) the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants; and (6) the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of the non-settling defendants. (Id. at 498-501.) Additionally, the evaluation must be made based on the information available at the time of settlement. (Id. at 599.)

If the court makes a good faith determination, the court may dismiss the settling party from comparative indemnity claims if the settling party has made such a request at the time of making the good faith motion. (CCP §§ 877, 877.6(c); CRC 3.1382.)

Discussion

Simply Fresh brings the instant, unopposed motion for good faith settlement determination. Simply Fresh and Plaintiff agreed to settle Plaintiff’s claims for $75,000.00. The parties state this figure represents Simply Fresh’s proportional share of liability.

Where good faith is uncontested, a “barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case, is sufficient.” (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261 [holding that when no one objects to a motion for good faith determination, a barebones motion that sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration that set forth a brief background of the case was sufficient in action where motion only discussed two of the Tech-Bilt factors, settlement amount and policy limits and declaration only gave a brief background of the case].)

The instant motion is unopposed. Thus, a “barebones motion” is sufficient. Defendant’s motion and declaration provides the background of the case, the procedural history of the case, throw the case came to be settled, and a basis for the Tech-Bilt factors described above. The settlement appears to be in the “ballpark” of a good faith settlement. The Court therefore finds the settlement was made in good faith. (CCP § 877.6(a).)

However, Simply Fresh did not provide adequate notice per the CRC. CRC Rule 3.1382 states that “[t]he notice of motion or application for determination of good faith settlement must list each party and pleading or portion of pleading affected by the settlement and the date on which the affected pleading was filed.” Simply Fresh’s notice does not provide for each party and pleading affected by the settlement, or the dates of filing for those pleadings.

Accordingly, Simply Fresh’s motion is CONTINUED to April 21, 2020, to allow for a code compliant notice. Moving party is ordered to give notice.