This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/03/2019 at 10:02:44 (UTC).

JOSE NOE FLORES ET AL VS ZHEN CHAO ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/02/2018 a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury case was filed by JOSE NOE FLORES against ZHEN CHAO in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0286

  • Filing Date:

    04/02/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

AMY D. HOGUE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

ZALAVERRIA ANA T DE JESUS TORRES

FLORES JOSE NOE

TORRES ZALAVERRIA ANA T DE JESUS

Defendants and Respondents

XUEYING WANG

CHAO ZHEN

DOES 1 THROUGH 50 INCLUSIVE

SOLA IMPACT FUND II-SPV LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

ELDER MARGARET A. ESQ.

SPENCER CHANDRA GEHRI

Defendant Attorneys

OHIRA MICHAEL

OHIRA MICHAEL T.

 

Court Documents

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

11/21/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Stipulation - No Order - STIPULATION - NO ORDER STIPULATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE

7/8/2019: Stipulation - No Order - STIPULATION - NO ORDER STIPULATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING THE INIT...)

7/10/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CONTINUING THE INIT...)

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

10/10/2018: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

11/30/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Court Order) of 11/30/2018

11/30/2018: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Court Order) of 11/30/2018

Notice - Notice Notice of Transfer and Reassignment

12/10/2018: Notice - Notice Notice of Transfer and Reassignment

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Court Order) of 01/07/2019

1/7/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Court Order) of 01/07/2019

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

1/7/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

4/4/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

4/4/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

4/4/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Answer

5/6/2019: Answer

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

6/4/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

6/4/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

Civil Case Cover Sheet - /Addendum

4/2/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet - /Addendum

Summons -

4/2/2018: Summons -

Complaint -

4/2/2018: Complaint -

8 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/03/2020
  • Hearing02/03/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 34 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2020
  • Hearing01/23/2020 at 09:00 AM in Department 34 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2019
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Jose Noe Flores (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 7, Amy D. Hogue, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 7, Amy D. Hogue, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2019
  • Docketat 08:35 AM in Department 34; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2019
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 34; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 34; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for Order Continuing the Initial Trial Date of August 5, 2019 to a Date the First Week of February 2020, and all Related Cutoffs Including Discovery to Operate According to the New Trial Date) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for Order Continuing the Init...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application (Unopposed Ex Parte Application for Order Continuing the Initial Trial Date of August 5, 2019 to a Date the First Week of February 2020, and all Related Cutoffs Including Discovery to Operate According to the New Trial Date); Filed by Zhen Chao (Defendant); Wang Xueying (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
13 More Docket Entries
  • 11/30/2018
  • DocketMotion/ Opposition/ Stipulation to Transfer Personal Injury Case to Independent Calendar Court and Order; Filed by Jose Noe Flores (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/10/2018
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Chandra Gehri Spencer (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jose Noe Flores (Plaintiff); Ana T De Jesus Torres Zalaverria (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Jose Noe Flores (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Jose Noe Flores (Plaintiff); Ana T De Jesus Torres Zalaverria (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet /Addendum

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Jose Noe Flores (Plaintiff); Ana T De Jesus Torres Zalaverria (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2018
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC700286    Hearing Date: March 10, 2020    Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Moving Party: Defendants Zhen Chao and Wang Xueying

Resp. Party: None

Defendants’ motion for determination of good faith settlement is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND:

This action arises out of Defendant’s failure to repair conditions of a multi-unit apartment complex, occupied by low-income tenants, minorities, and families with children.

On April 2, 2018, Plaintiffs Jose Noe Flores and Ana T. De Jesus Torres Zalaverria commenced this action against Zhen Chao and Wang Xueying for (1) failure to provide habitable dwelling; (2) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment and possession of the property; (3) nuisance; and (4) negligence.

On November 21, 2019, Plaintiffs identified Doe 1 as Sola Impact Fund II-SPV LLC.

On February 11, 2020, Defendants Zhen Chao and Wang Xueying filed the instant motion for determination of good faith settlement.

ANALYSIS:

A. Relevant Law

"(a)(1)Any party to an action in which 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 or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors, upon giving notice in the manner provided in subdivision (b) of Section 1005. . . .

(b) The issue of good faith of a settlement may be determined by the court on the basis of affidavits served with the notice of hearing, and any counter-affidavits filed in response, or the court may, in its discretion, receive other evidence at the hearing.

(c) A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasors or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasors or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.

(d) The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on the issue.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6(a)(1), (b)-(d).)

The factors considered in determining good faith include: the rough approximation of plaintiff's total recovery and settlor's proportionate liability; the amount paid in settlement; the allocation of settlement proceeds among the plaintiffs; a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than if found liable after a trial; the settlor's financial condition and insurance limits; and evidence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct between the settlor and the plaintiffs aimed at making the nonsettling parties pay more than their fair share. (Tech Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.) "[T]he determination whether the settlement was in good faith must be based on competent, admissible evidence." (Brehm Communities v. Sup. Ct. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 730, 736.)

“[O]nly 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.” (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.)

B. Discussion

Defendants move the Court for an order determining that the $50,000.00 settlement reached by Defendants and Plaintiff on January 10, 2020 was entered in good faith. (Memorandum, p. 2:2-4, 2:16-17.)

Defendants assert that their settlement meets all the requisite Tech-Bilt factors. Defendants maintain that they “comprise 2 of the 3 defendants in this lawsuit (66%); however, the settlement amount constitutes 58% of the undiscounted, claimed economic damages.” (Id. at pp. 3:27-4:1.) Defendants argue that this “amount is not unreasonably disproportionate or entirely outside of the ballpark, and particularly so when considering that the liability and damages are disputed.” (Id. at p. 4:1-3.) Defendants explain that “the allocation of the settlement proceeds is generally 50-50 between the plaintiffs.” (Id. at p. 4:6-8, citing Ohira Decl., ¶ 10.) Defendants’ counsel declares that “the settlement was a negotiated, arms-length agreement reached in good faith between counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for the settling defendants.” (Ohira Decl., ¶ 11.)

This motion is unopposed. The motion itself sets forth the ground of good faith and is accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of this case. (See City of Grand Terrace, 192 Cal.App. 3d at 1261; see also Ohira Decl., ¶¶3-5; see also Memorandum, pp. 2:7-18, 3:22-4:8.)

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for determination of good faith settlement.