This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/03/2019 at 04:22:39 (UTC).

CHRISTOPHER CLAUSEN ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/19/2017 CHRISTOPHER CLAUSEN filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are PATRICIA D. NIETO and GEORGINA T. RIZK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1851

  • Filing Date:

    05/19/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

PATRICIA D. NIETO

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

CLAUSEN CHRISTOPHER

CLAUSEN NATALYA MATURINO

Respondents and Defendants

DOES 1 TO 50 INCLUSIVE

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

FLORES JOEL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LOPEZ RAMON ROSSI ESQ.

CHAMBERS GARY L.

CHAMBERS GARRETT RYAN ESQ.

CHAMBERS GARY LEE ESQ.

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

BEACH PAUL B. ESQ.

BEACH PAUL BRYAN ESQ.

LI HAIYANG ESQ.

 

Court Documents

ORDER GRANTING THE UNOPPOSED EXPARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING THE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE, TRIAL, AND DISCOVERY AND LAW AND MOTION DATES

9/5/2018: ORDER GRANTING THE UNOPPOSED EXPARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING THE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE, TRIAL, AND DISCOVERY AND LAW AND MOTION DATES

Minute Order

9/5/2018: Minute Order

DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINTJING THE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE, TRIAL, AND DISCOVERY AND LAW AND MOTION DATES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF;

9/5/2018: DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINTJING THE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE, TRIAL, AND DISCOVERY AND LAW AND MOTION DATES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF;

NOTICE OF RULLNG ON DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING THE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE, TRIAL, AND DISCOVERY AND LAW AND MOTION DATES

9/11/2018: NOTICE OF RULLNG ON DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING THE FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE, TRIAL, AND DISCOVERY AND LAW AND MOTION DATES

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

9/18/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

Declaration

12/10/2018: Declaration

Motion for Summary Judgment

12/10/2018: Motion for Summary Judgment

Notice

12/10/2018: Notice

Declaration

12/10/2018: Declaration

Request for Judicial Notice

12/10/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Objection

12/12/2018: Objection

Opposition

12/14/2018: Opposition

Minute Order

12/14/2018: Minute Order

Order

12/14/2018: Order

Ex Parte Application

12/14/2018: Ex Parte Application

Motion for Summary Judgment

12/17/2018: Motion for Summary Judgment

Notice of Ruling

12/17/2018: Notice of Ruling

Objection

1/25/2019: Objection

82 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/21/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 2, Georgina T. Rizk, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference;)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • DocketStatement of the Case; Filed by Christopher Clausen (Plaintiff); County of Los Angeles (Defendant); Joel Flores (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • DocketMotion in Limine (No. 1); Filed by Christopher Clausen (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • DocketExhibit List; Filed by Christopher Clausen (Plaintiff); County of Los Angeles (Defendant); Joel Flores (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • DocketNotice (JOINT LIST OF CONTROVERT ISSUES); Filed by Christopher Clausen (Plaintiff); County of Los Angeles (Defendant); Joel Flores (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • DocketMotion in Limine (NO. 6); Filed by Christopher Clausen (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • DocketMotion in Limine (No. 5); Filed by Christopher Clausen (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • DocketMotion in Limine (No. 4); Filed by Christopher Clausen (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • DocketJury Instructions; Filed by Christopher Clausen (Plaintiff); County of Los Angeles (Defendant); Joel Flores (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
117 More Docket Entries
  • 08/24/2017
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2017-08-24 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/21/2017
  • DocketNotice Notice of Withdrawal of Demurrer

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/21/2017
  • DocketNotice; Filed by County of Los Angeles (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • DocketDemurrer; Filed by County of Los Angeles (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • DocketDemurrer - without Motion to Strike

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by County of Los Angeles (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/19/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Christopher Clausen (Plaintiff); Natalya Maturino Clausen (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/19/2017
  • DocketComplaint

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/19/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Christopher Clausen (Plaintiff); Natalya Maturino Clausen (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****1851    Hearing Date: March 05, 2020    Dept: 29

Clausen v. County of Los Angeles, et al.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and/or Enter Judgment and for an Order of Post-Judgment Interest is DENIED.

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. ; 664.6 permits entry of judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement if there is a writing signed by the parties. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. ; 664.6.

The court acts as the trier of fact, determines whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement. Terry v. Conlan (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1445, 1454. The court’s power is limited to determining the existence of the agreement and to enforce its settlement. Viejo Bancorp, Inc. v. Wood (1989) 217 Cal. App. 3d 200, 209.

The parties do not dispute that they both entered into a settlement agreement. Motion, Ex. 1. Plaintiff claims he is entitled to judgment based on the signed settlement agreement. However, the settlement cannot be enforced because settlement was “expressly conditioned upon obtaining the requisite approvals through the County’s settlement of claims process, including approval by the Los Angeles County Claims Board and/or Board of Supervisions. In the event all such approvals are not obtained, this Release and settlement shall be of no further force and effect.” Motion, Ex. 1, Page 4, ¶ 2 “Condition.”

Defense counsel states that the review process of settlements take approximately six or more months depending on the size of the settlement. Plaintiff made this motion two months after Plaintiff and counsel signed the agreement. Declaration of Haiyan Allen Li, ¶ 3. Defense counsel avers that the approval process is still ongoing and progressing within the usual time frame. Id. ¶ 4.

As the settlement was conditional, and the condition has not occurred, judgment cannot be entered.

Defendant’s request for imposition of sanctions pursuant to Cal Code Civil Procedure ; 128.5 is DENIED. A motion pursuant to this section must be separately made and cannot be filed until 21 days after service of the motion on the offending party to permit time for the motion to be withdrawn. Cal Code Civil Procedure ; 128.5(f)(1)(A), (b).

Moving party is ordered to give notice.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer BEACH PAUL B. ESQ.