This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/02/2019 at 00:53:21 (UTC).

JACOB SHLUSH VS MEIR SHARVIT ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/11/2018 JACOB SHLUSH filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MEIR SHARVIT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1117

  • Filing Date:

    04/11/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

SHLUSH JACOB

Defendants and Respondents

SHARVIT HANNAH

DOES 1 TO 10

SHARVIT MEIR

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

WESTSIDE LEGAL GROUP

 

Court Documents

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

7/10/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

7/10/2018: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

Minute Order

7/11/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

8/7/2018: Minute Order

DECLARATION OF GEORGE A. SHOHET IN RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO APPEAR

8/31/2018: DECLARATION OF GEORGE A. SHOHET IN RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO APPEAR

Notice of Case Management Conference

10/24/2018: Notice of Case Management Conference

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

11/5/2018: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Minute Order

11/16/2018: Minute Order

Certificate of Mailing for

11/16/2018: Certificate of Mailing for

Certificate of Mailing for

1/25/2019: Certificate of Mailing for

Minute Order

1/25/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

3/29/2019: Minute Order

Proof of Personal Service

3/29/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Minute Order

6/19/2019: Minute Order

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

4/17/2018: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

4/17/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

SUMMONS

4/11/2018: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR COMPENSETORY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR: 1. FRAUD; ETC

4/11/2018: COMPLAINT FOR COMPENSETORY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR: 1. FRAUD; ETC

13 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/19/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference (regarding response from defendant, request for entry of default and dismissal) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference regarding response from defendant, request ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (for Failure File Proof of Service and Failure to Enter Default) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • Notice (of Statement for Punitive Damages); Filed by Jacob Shlush (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure File Proof of S...) of 03/29/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure File Proof of S...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Jacob Shlush (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Order to Show Cause Re: (Entry of Default) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
22 More Docket Entries
  • 07/11/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2018
  • CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2018
  • NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2018
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2018
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR COMPENSETORY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR: 1. FRAUD; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Jacob Shlush (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC701117    Hearing Date: July 15, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: July 15, 2020

Case Name: Chanin, et al. v. Rodeo Realty, Inc., et al.

Case No.: BC701117

Matter: Motion for Determination that Settlement was Made in Good Faith

Moving Party: Defendants Jack Gironda and Preferred Home Inspection Service, LLC

Responding Party: Unopposed


Tentative Ruling: The Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is granted.

The Court notes, however, that the settlements with the minor Plaintiffs are not finalized until petitions for minors’ compromise are submitted.


Defendants Jack Gironda and Preferred Home Inspection Service, LLC seek a determination that their settlement with Plaintiffs Lieba Chanin, Shmuel Chanin, Esther Chanin (a minor), Yita Chanin (a minor), and Freeda Chanin (a minor) was made in good faith. The principal term of the settlement is that Defendants have agreed to tender $20,000 to Plaintiffs and to waive $2,500 in sanctions owed by Plaintiffs in exchange for a release of all claims arising from the subject home inspection transaction.

Under Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6, a good faith settlement discharges the settling defendant from liability for contribution or indemnity to any other joint tortfeasor. Guidelines for determining a good faith settlement include: (1) assessing whether the settlement reflects the rights and liabilities of the parties; (2) the amount paid; (3) the allocation among plaintiffs; (4) recognizing that the amount will normally be less than the defendant would pay upon losing at trial; (5) defendants’ insurance policy limits and financial condition; and (6) existence of collusion, fraud or tortious conduct aimed at injuring the interests of other defendants. (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.)

Because no oppositions were filed, the Motion may be granted without consideration of the Tech-Bilt factors and on the basis of setting forth the ground for good faith determination and a brief background of the case. (See City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261 [“[W]e . . . conclude that only when the good faith nature of a settlement is disputed, it is incumbent upon the trial court to consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors. That is to say, when no one objects, the 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.”)

This is a matter in which Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to properly disclose defects in connection with a home inspection related to the purchase of a home. Among other things, Defendants contend they cannot be liable because they met the duty of care for home inspectors or else any defects were outside the scope of a reasonable home inspection. Under the circumstances, the Court cannot find that “the settlement is so far ‘out of the ballpark’ in relation to [the Tech-Bilt] factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute.” (Tech-Bilt, Inc., supra, 38 Cal. 3d at pp. 499–500.) Accordingly, the Court finds that the settlement was made in good faith. The Motion is granted.

The Court notes, however, that the settlements with the minor Plaintiffs are not finalized until petitions for minors’ compromise are submitted.

Case Number: BC701117    Hearing Date: July 06, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: July 6, 2020

Case Name: Slush v. Sharvit, et al.

Case No.: BC701117

Matter: Motion to Dismiss

Moving Party: Defendants Meir Sharvit and Hannah Sharbit

Responding Party: Unopposed


Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Dismiss is denied.


Defendants Meir Sharvit and Hannah Sharvit seek to be dismissed from this action because they were never served by any means. (H. Sharvit Decl. ¶¶ 1-4; M. Sharvit Decl. ¶¶ 1-2.)

The Motion to Dismiss/Quash is denied because no proof of service was provided for the Motion.