HUMBERTO RAMIREZ ET AL VS BRE INVESTMENT LLC ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC654921    Hearing Date: November 20, 2020    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Two petitions were filed to approve compromise of disputed claim as to the minors below. No oppositions were filed to the petitions.

PETITION ON BEHALF OF KAITLYNN RODAS

Petitioner, parent, and guardian ad litem Dina Tatuan petitioned to approve compromise of disputed claim on behalf of Claimant Kaitlynn Rodas. The petition is unopposed.

Under the terms of the compromise, Claimant will receive a gross sum of $56,178.81 of which: (1) $14,044.71 will be used to pay attorneys’ fees; and (2) $3,206.44 will be used to pay expenses other than medical expenses. Claimant will be left with a net balance of proceeds of $38,927.66 that is proposed that is proposed to be invested in a single-premium deferred annuity, subject to withdrawal only upon the authorization of the Court. (Petition at ¶ 19(b)(3).) Attachment 19b(3) states that the annuity will be issued by Prudential Life Insurance Company of America.

The Court GRANTS the petition to approve compromise of disputed claim on behalf of Claimant Kaitlynn Rodas as it is unopposed (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410) conditioned on the appearance of petitioner, parent, and guardian ad litem Dina Tatuan at the hearing for the Court to take her testimony[1]. The Court will set an OSC re: proof of deposit at the hearing.

PETITION ON BEHALF OF MOISES SANTA CRUZ

Petitioner, parent, and guardian ad litem Maria Santa Cruz petitioned to approve compromise of disputed claim on behalf of Claimant Moises Santa Cruz. The petition is unopposed.

Under the terms of the compromise, Claimant will receive a gross sum of $56,178.81 of which: (1) $14,044.71 will be used to pay attorneys’ fees; and (2) $3,206.44 will be used to pay expenses other than medical expenses. Claimant will be left with a net balance of proceeds of $38,927.66 that is proposed that is proposed to be invested in a single-premium deferred annuity, subject to withdrawal only upon the authorization of the Court. (Petition at ¶ 19(b)(3).) Attachment 19b(3) states that the annuity will be issued by Prudential Life Insurance Company of America.

The Court GRANTS the petition to approve compromise of disputed claim on behalf of Claimant Moises Santa Cruz as it is unopposed (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410) conditioned on the appearance of petitioner, parent, and guardian ad litem Maria Santa Cruz at the hearing for the Court to take her testimony[2]. The Court will set an OSC re: proof of deposit at the hearing.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.  If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 20th day of November 2020

Case Number: BC654921    Hearing Date: November 17, 2020    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Better Real Estate I, LLC (“Moving Defendant”)

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from allegedly wrongful actions taken against tenants in an apartment building located at 240 N. Robinson Street in Los Angeles.

Moving Defendant filed a motion for determination of good faith settlement (the “Motion”)[1] as to a settlement entered into between Moving Defendant and Plaintiffs. The Motion is unopposed.

Due to the lack of opposition, the Court GRANTS the Motion. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.  If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 17th day of November 2020

Case Number: BC654921    Hearing Date: October 09, 2020    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTIES: Defendants David Bramante (“Bramante”) and BRE Investment, LLC (“BRE”)

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed. Any opposition papers were required to be filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).)

BACKGROUND

This action arises from allegedly wrongful actions taken against tenants in an apartment building located at 240 N. Robinson Street in Los Angeles. Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants, alleging causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) negligent hiring and supervision; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (5) nuisance; (6) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (7) constructive eviction; (8) violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code, Section 152.00 et seq.; (9) violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code, Section 151.30(D)(1); (10) violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code, Section 151.04(A); and (11) unfair business practices.

On August 21, 2020, Defendants filed and served a motion for determination of good faith settlement[1] with respect to the settlement entered into with Plaintiffs. Defendants’ notice of motion indicated that the hearing on such motion was set for November 3, 2020. On September 4, 2020, Defendants filed and served a notice of advancement of hearing which indicated that the November 3, 2020 hearing date on Defendants’ motion was advanced to October 9, 2020. Defendants move for an order that: (1) the settlement with Plaintiffs was made in good faith within the meaning of California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 877.6; and (2) any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor is barred from any further claims against Defendants for equitable or comparative contribution and/or partial or comparative indemnity based upon comparative negligence or comparative fault.

According to Defendants’ notice of motion, pursuant to the terms of the settlement: (1) Bramante, by and through his insurance carriers, will pay $249,999.99 to Plaintiffs in exchange for a full release of all claims against him; and (2) BRE, by and through its insurance carriers, will pay $249,999.99 to Plaintiffs in exchange for a full release of all claims against it. Defendants’ motion is unopposed. The declaration of Defendants’ counsel, Kristyn J. Mintesnot, states that: (1) as advised by Plaintiffs’ counsel, the settlement proceeds will be distributed evenly between the Plaintiffs based on their length of tenancy (Mintesnot Decl. at ¶ 6); and (2) each party to the settlement is to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs. (Id. at ¶ 8.)

On August 27, 2020, Plaintiffs filed and served a notice of settlement of the entire case.

Due to the lack of opposition, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for determination of good faith settlement. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.  If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 9th day of October 2020