This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/14/2021 at 19:29:57 (UTC).

JASON MAH VS THEERA BUNSIRIPAIBOON ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/05/2018 JASON MAH filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against THEERA BUNSIRIPAIBOON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CHRISTOPHER K. LUI and DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6638

  • Filing Date:

    03/05/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

 

Party Details

Petitioner, Cross Defendant and Plaintiff

MAH JASON

Respondents, Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

BUNSIRIPAIBOON THEERA

BEDROSIANHAJLABADI HARMIK

DOES 1 TO 100

CALIFORNIA STATE OF

BEDROSIANHAJLABADI MARTIK

MYERS & SONS CONSTRUCTION LP

MAH JASON

MYERS & SONS CONSTRUCTION L.P. DOE 1

UNKNOWN GOVERNMENT ENTITY

STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALTRANS DOE 2

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant, Cross Plaintiff, Cross Defendant and Plaintiff Attorneys

LAW YUK K.

CASTRANOVA ELIA JAMES ESQ.

LAW YUK

CASEY DEMIAN MICHAEL

GIBBS MATTHEW S. ESQ.

Cross Defendant, Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorney

CASTRANOVA ELIA JAMES ESQ.

Respondent, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Plaintiff Attorneys

VUONG NENA T. DEPUTY ATTORNEY

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

GIBBS MATTHEW S ESQ.

ANIELSKI JEFFREY MATHEW

SAID NADIN S

LAW YUK K.

CASEY DEMIAN MICHAEL

TEREHOVA EVGENIA

VELASTEGUI MARVIN P. VELASTEGUI P.

BRANDON DAVID

OZELLO FRANK J. JR.

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

VUONG NENA T. DEPUTY ATTORNEY

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

Defendant, Cross Defendant and Plaintiff Attorneys

SAID NADIN S

LAW YUK K.

CASEY DEMIAN MICHAEL

CASTRANOVA ELIA JAMES ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO BIFURCATE

10/30/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO BIFURCATE

Order - ORDER [PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

9/22/2020: Order - ORDER [PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER CONTINUING MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION) OF 09/29/2020

9/29/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER CONTINUING MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION) OF 09/29/2020

Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

6/1/2020: Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Request for Dismissal - REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL - NOT ENTERED

6/30/2020: Request for Dismissal - REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL - NOT ENTERED

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL

6/11/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

5/27/2020: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC AND RELATED DATES

12/9/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC AND RELATED DATES

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

10/2/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Reply - REPLY NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT/CROSS-DEFENDANT MYERS & SONS CONSTRUCTION, L.P.S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS- COMPLAINT

9/23/2019: Reply - REPLY NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT/CROSS-DEFENDANT MYERS & SONS CONSTRUCTION, L.P.S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS- COMPLAINT

Notice - NOTICE OF ERRATA RE THEERA BUNSIRIPAIBOON'S CROSS-COMPLAINT

8/28/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF ERRATA RE THEERA BUNSIRIPAIBOON'S CROSS-COMPLAINT

Answer

8/15/2019: Answer

Summons - SUMMONS ON CROSS COMPLAINT

7/10/2019: Summons - SUMMONS ON CROSS COMPLAINT

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

3/29/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

9/21/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

Proof of Service -

7/2/2018: Proof of Service -

SUMMONS -

3/28/2018: SUMMONS -

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

3/5/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

66 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/13/2022
  • Hearing09/13/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2022
  • Hearing08/30/2022 at 10:00 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2021
  • DocketStipulation and Order (Stipulation to Continue Trial); Filed by Myers & Sons Construction, LP (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/02/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement (CCP 877.6) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/02/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling (Regarding Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement); Filed by Martik Bedrosianhajlabadi (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/02/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Defendant Mantik Bedrosianhajlabadi's Motion for Determinatio...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Bifurcate - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2021
  • Docketat 2:30 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
96 More Docket Entries
  • 03/28/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Jason Mah (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2018
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2018
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Jason Mah (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2018
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2018
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2018
  • DocketORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2018
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Jason Mah (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Jason Mah (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC696638    Hearing Date: June 2, 2021    Dept: 28

Notice of Settlement and Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Having considered all documents submitted in the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On March 5, 2018, Plaintiff Jason Mah Theera BunsiripaiboonHarmik Bedrosianhajlabadi, State of California, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging two causes of action arising from a traffic collision on April 23, 2017.

On September 21, 2018, cross-complainants Martik Bedrosianhajlabadi Harmik Bedrosianhajlabadi cross-Defendant Theera Bunsiripaiboon entity, MOES 1 through 50, inclusive, alleging

On March 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, properly naming Myers & Sons Construction, LP as a party to the action.

On July 6, 2019, Myers & Sons Construction, LP filed a cross-complaint against cross-Defendant Theera Bunsiripaiboon

On August 15, 2019, Defendant/cross-Defendant/cross-Complainant Theera Bunsiripaiboon

On October 7, 2019, Myers & Sons Construction, LP filed a Mah

On January 9, 2020, Theera Bunsiripaiboon of $15,000 with Plaintiff Jason Mah, as well as an Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement. The Court granted the Application on February 5, 2020.

On June 1, 2020, Harmik Bedrosianhajlabadi Mah

On March 4, 2021, Martik Bedrosianhajlabadi Mah

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant Martik

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section¿877.6, subdivision¿(a)(1),¿provides, in relevant part, that, on noticed motion, “[a]ny¿party to an action wherein it is alleged that two or more parties are joint¿tortfeasors¿or co-obligors on a contract debt shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff¿. . . and one or more alleged¿tortfeasors¿or co-obligors¿. . . .”¿¿“A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint¿tortfeasor¿or co-obligor from any further claims against the¿settling¿tortfeasor¿or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.”¿¿(Code Civ. Proc.¿§ 877.6,¿subd.¿(c).)¿¿Although a determination that a settlement was in good faith does not discharge any other party from liability, “it shall reduce the claims against the others in the amount stipulated” by the settlement.¿¿(Code Civ. Proc.¿§ 877,¿subd.¿(a).)¿

“The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.”¿¿(Code Civ. Proc.¿§ 877.6,¿subd.¿(d).)¿

In¿City of Grand View Terrace v. Superior Court¿(1987)¿192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261, the court provided the following guidance regarding a motion for a good faith settlement determination:¿

This court notes that of the hundreds of motions for good faith determination presented for trial court approval each year, the overwhelming majority are unopposed and granted summarily by the trial court.¿ At the time of filing in many cases, the moving party does not know if a contest will develop.¿ If each motion required a full recital by declaration or affidavit setting forth a complete factual response to all of the¿Tech-Bilt¿factors, literally thousands of attorney hours would be consumed and inch-thick motions would have to be read and considered by trial courts in an exercise which would waste valuable judicial and legal time and clients’ resources. . . .¿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.¿

If the good faith settlement is contested, section 877.6, subdivision (d), sets forth a workable ground rule for the hearing by placing the burden of proving the lack of good faith on the contesting party.¿¿Once there is a showing made by the settlor of the settlement, the burden of proof on the issue of good faith shifts to the¿nonsettlor¿who asserts that the settlement was not made in good faith.¿¿If contested, declarations by the¿nonsettlor¿should be filed which in many cases could require the moving party to file responsive¿counterdeclarations¿to negate the lack of good faith asserted by the¿nonsettling¿contesting party.¿

(192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1260-1261)¿

In¿Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates¿(1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499, the California Supreme Court identified the following nonexclusive factors courts are to consider in determining if a settlement is in good faith under section 877.6: “a rough approximation of plaintiffs' total recovery and the settlor's proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial.¿¿Other relevant considerations include the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants,¿as well as the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of¿nonsettling¿defendants.”¿

The evaluation of whether a settlement was made in good faith is required to “be made¿on the basis of¿information available at the time of settlement.”¿¿(Tech-Bilt, Inc.,¿supra,¿38¿Cal.3d at¿p.¿499.)¿¿“‘[A] defendant’s settlement figure must not be grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person, at the time of the settlement, would estimate the settling defendant’s liability to be.” (Ibid.)¿

“The party asserting the lack of good faith, who has the burden of proof on that issue (§ 877.6,¿subd. (d)), should be permitted to demonstrate, if he can, that the settlement is so far¿‘out of the ballpark’¿in relation to these factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute.¿¿Such a demonstration would establish that the proposed settlement was not a¿‘settlement made in good faith’¿within the terms of section 877.6.”¿¿(Id.¿at pp. 499-500.)¿

“[A] court not only looks at the alleged tortfeasor's potential liability to the plaintiff, but¿it must also consider the culpability of the tortfeasor vis-à-vis other parties alleged to be responsible for the same injury.¿ Potential liability for indemnity to a¿nonsettling¿defendant is an important consideration for the trial court in determining whether to approve a settlement by an alleged tortfeasor[.]” (TSI Seismic Tenant Space, Inc. v. Superior Court¿(2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 159, 166.)¿

DISCUSSION

The Court finds Moving Party has filed sufficient declarations. While the settlement figure of $20,000 is far less than Plaintiff’s alleged damages of $1.5M in future earnings, $950,000 in medical bills, and $175,000 in lost earnings, settling defendant contends that he was the least at fault for the collision, was determined to be a victim of the accident rather than the cause, and that no theory of liability could find him liable. Settling defendant offers policy limits of $20,000 to have claims against him released.

No opposition was filed.¿ As such, the bare-bones motion and supporting declarations show the $20,000 settlement entered between Moving Party and Plaintiff is fair and reasonable.¿

CONCLUSION

The Motion is GRANTED.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BC696638    Hearing Date: December 02, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion to Bifurcate

The Motion to Bifurcate the Liability and Damages Phases at trial is CONTINUED to the trial date on May 26, 2021, at 8:30 a.m. to be heard and decided by the court assigned to conduct the trial of this action.  Defendant Martik Bedrosianhajlabadi may include the motion to bifurcate and any operative stipulation or opposing and reply papers with the motions in limine in the parties’ joint trial binder, pursuant to the First Amended Standing Order Re: Final Status Conference, Personal Injury Courts, effective as of April 16, 2018, to present to the judge to whom this matter is assigned for trial.

Defendant Martik Bedrosianhajlabadi is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Defendant Martik Bedrosianhajlabadi is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where MYERS & SONS CONSTRUCTION LP is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer CASTRANOVA ELIA JAMES

Latest cases represented by Lawyer LAW YUK K.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer LAW YUK