This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/21/2020 at 00:44:36 (UTC).

JOSE JIMENEZ ET AL VS NAYELI JAZMIN SALDANA VERDUZCO ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/07/2018 JOSE JIMENEZ filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against NAYELI JAZMIN SALDANA VERDUZCO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7261

  • Filing Date:

    03/07/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

CABRERA SERGIO

JIMENEZ JOSE

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

DOES 1 TO 10 INCLUSIVE

VERDUZCO NAYELI JAZMIN SALDANA

GLAZE AMY LYNN

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff

GLAZE AMY LYNN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

KSACHUKYAN VARDAN ESQ.

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

REEVES SHERYL LEE ESQ.

GATES PETER JOHN ESQ.

GATES GONTER GUY PROUDFOOT & MUENCH LLP

Cross Defendant Attorney

GATES PETER J.

 

Court Documents

[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

12/4/2019: [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

[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

7/22/2019: [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

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

7/29/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Request for Dismissal

4/30/2019: Request for Dismissal

NOTICE OF NAME CHANGE

9/10/2018: NOTICE OF NAME CHANGE

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

5/30/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

6/20/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

CROSS - COMPLAINT FOR INDEMNITY; ETC

6/20/2018: CROSS - COMPLAINT FOR INDEMNITY; ETC

Summons on Cross Complaint -

6/20/2018: Summons on Cross Complaint -

ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

7/12/2018: ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

4/27/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

4/27/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

CoverSheet -

3/7/2018: CoverSheet -

Summons -

3/7/2018: Summons -

Complaint -

3/7/2018: Complaint -

3 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/08/2021
  • Hearing03/08/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 3 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; : OSC RE Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2020
  • Hearing03/20/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 3 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2020
  • Hearing03/10/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 3 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2019
  • Docket[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Nayeli Jazmin Saldana Verduzco (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 3, Jon R. Takasugi, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2019
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Nayeli Jazmin Saldana Verduzco (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2019
  • Docket[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by Nayeli Jazmin Saldana Verduzco (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
12 More Docket Entries
  • 06/20/2018
  • DocketCROSS - COMPLAINT FOR INDEMNITY; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Nayeli Jazmin Saldana Verduzco (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2018
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jose Jimenez (Plaintiff); Sergio Cabrera (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jose Jimenez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Jose Jimenez (Plaintiff); Sergio Cabrera (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Jose Jimenez (Plaintiff); Sergio Cabrera (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC697261    Hearing Date: March 03, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

JOSE JIMENEZ, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

NAYELI JAZMIN SALDANA VERDUZCO, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC697261

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

March 3, 2020

1. Background Facts

Plaintiffs, Jose Jimenez and Sergio Cabrera filed this action against Defendants, Nayeli Jazmin Saldana Verduzco and Amy Lynn Glaze for damages arising out of a three-car accident. Verduzco was turning left when the accident occurred. Traffic traveling in the other direction was stopped and was permitting her to turn. Glaze was proceeding in the bike lane at a high rate of speed, while on a cell phone, and failed to stop. Verduzco struck Glaze, who in turn struck Plaintiffs.

2. Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

a. Parties’ Positions

Plaintiffs have agreed to settle all claims with Glaze for the total amount of $30,000 ($15,000/plaintiff), which is the limit on her insurance policy. Plaintiffs seek an order finding the settlement in good faith. Plaintiffs base their motion on the contention that the settlement is a policy limits settlement, and Glaze has no other assets from which to satisfy a judgment against her.

Verduzco opposes the motion, contending (a) Glaze is primarily at fault for the accident, (b) Plaintiffs’ special damages exceed $200,000 each, and (c) Glaze has not shown that she is insolvent.

Per the Court’s 2/12/20 ex parte order, no reply papers are permitted, and none were filed.

  1. Analysis

Pursuant to Aero-Crete, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 203, 208-209, any amount paid by an insolvent defendant is likely a good faith settlement. Pursuant to Schmid v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1244, 1249, when an insolvent defendant offers his policy limits in settlement, the settlement is necessarily in good faith. Glaze argues her settlement is necessarily in good faith because she has offered her policy limit, and she has no other assets from which to satisfy a judgment against her.

Verduzco correctly notes, in opposition to the motion, that the evidence submitted with the moving papers is insufficient to reach this conclusion. Glaze declares, at ¶5 of her declaration, that the $30,000 settlement represents the only insurance available in connection with the complaint. She declares, at ¶6, “Other than my insurance policy through Infinity, I am unable to pay any money towards settlement of this matter or towards the satisfaction of any judgment that may be obtained by plaintiffs.” This is not even close to the evidence that was submitted in the cases relied upon by Plaintiffs in their moving papers. Those cases included a specific review of the parties’ assets, bank accounts, and income. Glaze has not provided any specific information in any of the above regards. Notably, Verduzco provides evidence, in opposition to the motion, that Glaze is employed as a nurse.

Plaintiffs failed to meet their moving burden to show Glaze is insolvent, and therefore the motion for determination of good faith settlement is denied. The Court notes that the motion does not attempt to make a showing of the Tech-Bilt factors, which showing would be necessary if the motion did not rest entirely on Glaze’s purported financial condition.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.