Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/10/2019 at 07:59:30 (UTC).

JUAN RAMON VILLA VS ONLINE TRUCKING INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/24/2017 JUAN RAMON VILLA filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against ONLINE TRUCKING INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are PETER A. HERNANDEZ and GEORGINA T. RIZK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2594

  • Filing Date:

    05/24/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Pomona Courthouse South

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

PETER A. HERNANDEZ

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

VILLA JUAN RAMON

Defendants and Respondents

ONLINE TURCKING INC

KUYBUS ANTONY

DOES 1 TO 50

INTERMODAL WEST INC DOE 1

LEIVA RAFAEL

ONLINE TRUCKING INC.

KUYBUS ANTHONY

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

ONLINE TRUCKING INC.

Defendants and Cross Defendants

INTERMODAL WEST INC DOE 1

LEIVA RAFAEL

Other

PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BANAFSHE P. RYAN

BANAFSHE LAW FIRM PLC

DUNBAR DANIEL WILLIAM

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

PURCELL BYRON MICHAEL ESQ.

IVIE MCNELL & WYATT APLC

PURCELL BYRON MICHAEL

KRAMER JEFFREY STEVEN

SCHONBUCH MICHAEL NEIL

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

6/18/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT/DISMISSAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF SHIRIN R. DELKHAH IN SUPPORT THEREOF

8/1/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT/DISMISSAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF SHIRIN R. DELKHAH IN SUPPORT THEREOF

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ONLINE TRUCKING, INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL A MENTAL EXAMINATION; DECLARATION OF AUSTIN G. WARD, ESQ.

8/20/2018: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ONLINE TRUCKING, INC.'S MOTION TO COMPEL A MENTAL EXAMINATION; DECLARATION OF AUSTIN G. WARD, ESQ.

DEFENDANTS ONLINE TRUCKING, INC. AND ANTHONY KUYBUS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF

8/24/2018: DEFENDANTS ONLINE TRUCKING, INC. AND ANTHONY KUYBUS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF

PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HOLD AN INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE AND HEAR PLANTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION;AND ETC.

9/10/2018: PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HOLD AN INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE AND HEAR PLANTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION;AND ETC.

NOTICE OF RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL

9/14/2018: NOTICE OF RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL

Unknown

10/10/2018: Unknown

Reply

10/23/2018: Reply

Declaration

10/23/2018: Declaration

Order

10/30/2018: Order

Substitution of Attorney

12/7/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Reply

1/18/2019: Reply

Unknown

2/1/2019: Unknown

Minute Order

2/1/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

2/27/2019: Minute Order

Cross-Complaint

3/8/2019: Cross-Complaint

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

6/9/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

6/19/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

76 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/07/2019
  • Motion for Summary Judgment; Filed by Anthony Kuybus (Defendant); Online Trucking, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Anthony Kuybus (Defendant); Online Trucking, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • Separate Statement; Filed by Anthony Kuybus (Defendant); Online Trucking, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • Declaration (Declaration of Anthony Kuybus' in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues); Filed by Anthony Kuybus (Defendant); Online Trucking, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • Declaration (Declaration of Douglas Young in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues); Filed by Anthony Kuybus (Defendant); Online Trucking, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • Declaration (Declaration of Marie Maurice and Exhibits in Support of Motion For Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues); Filed by Anthony Kuybus (Defendant); Online Trucking, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • Reply (Plaintiff Juan Villa's Reply Brief in Support of His Motion Pursuant to CCP 473 For Leave to Be Heard Orally on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel); Filed by Juan Ramon Villa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Opposition (Defendants/Cross-Complainants Online Trucking, Inc. and Anthony Kuybus' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion Pursuant to CCP Section 473 for Leave to be Heard on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel); Filed by Anthony Kuybus (Defendant); Online Trucking, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Notice (Notice Re Amended Proof of Service Re: Defendants/Cross-Complainants Online Trucking, Inc. and Anthony Kuybus' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion Pursuant to CCP Section 473 for Leave to be Heard on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel); Filed by Anthony Kuybus (Defendant); Online Trucking, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
136 More Docket Entries
  • 09/13/2017
  • Association of Attorney; Filed by Juan Ramon Villa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2017
  • Answer; Filed by Anthony Kuybus (Defendant); Online Turcking Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/27/2017
  • DEFENDANTS ONLINE TRUCKING, INC. AND ANTHONY KUYBUS' ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Juan Ramon Villa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Juan Ramon Villa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. GENERAL NEGLIGENCE ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Juan Ramon Villa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC662594    Hearing Date: February 02, 2021    Dept: O

AFTER HEARING, PLAINTIFF JUAN RAMON VILLA’S MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS GRANTED

Plaintiff Juan Ramon Villa (“Plaintiff”) moves to enforce the global settlement agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 against Defendants Anthony Kuybus, Rafael Leiva, Online Trucking, Inc. and Intermodal West, Inc. (collectively, the “Defendants”).

Legal Standard

Under section 664.6:

If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.  If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.

(CCP § 664.6.) The agreement must be sufficiently definite to enable courts to give it an exact meaning. If an essential element is reserved for future agreement, it is not sufficiently definite. (See Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810-812.) 

According to Plaintiff’s counsel, the parties in the instant action reached a settlement on September 4, 2020, in the total amount of $320,000.00. The agreement was reduced to writing in a formal agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) and signed by the parties in September and October 2020. (See Declaration of Robert Glassman (“Glassman Decl.”), Ex. 1.) The Settlement Agreement required that within 45 days of “full” execution, the settlement proceeds would be distributed. This has not been done and, therefore, the reason for Plaintiff’s motion. The court has reviewed the Settlement Agreement and finds it is sufficiently definite and signed by Plaintiff and Defendants.  (Id., ¶¶ 3-4, Ex. 1.) The parties further agreed that the court shall retain jurisdiction over this action and the Settlement Agreement pursuant to section 664.6. (See Id. at ¶ 4, Ex. 1.)

The Agreement provides, in pertinent part, that:

(1) The settlement proceeds shall be disbursed in the sum of $285,000.00 made payable to “Panish Shea Boyle Client Trust Account” on behalf of Defendants Online Trucking and Kuybus within 45 days from the date of full execution of the Agreement. (Id., Ex. 1: ¶ A.)

(2) The settlement proceeds shall be disbursed in the sum of $35,000.00 made payable to “Panish Shea Boyle Client Trust Account” on behalf Defendants Kuybus and Intermodel within 45 days from the date of full execution of the Agreement. (Id.)

(3) Plaintiff “acknowledges and understands that certain liens may exist on these settlement proceeds, such as liens arising from medical services and/or treatment rendered to [Plaintiff] by various medical providers. In further consideration of the sum paid, [Plaintiff] agrees that [Plaintiff] will pay, satisfy, and release any and all outstanding liens (including but not limited to, any lien held by the government of the United States, State of California, and/or County pursuant to any Medicare, Medicaid, Medi-Cal, Social Security, hospital, medical insurance coverage subrogation claims, worker’s compensation, and/or any and all other type of properly perfected liens or interest that is and/or could be claimed by any person and/or entity from the settlement process paid, and will keep all settlement proceeds in trust until such time as all liens and/or claims have been fully paid, satisfied, and/or released.” (Id., Ex. 1: ¶ G.1 (emphasis added).)

(4) Plaintiff expressly stipulates and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Defendants from any and all lawsuits, causes of action, demands and/or claims of any nature whatsoever that may be made or instituted by any such lien holders for the purpose of enforcing any liens attaching to these settlement proceeds." (Id., Ex. 1: ¶ G.2.)

Plaintiff contends that Defendants have refused to pay the $320,000.00 settlement funds.

Defendants contend that Plaintiff himself has not followed the terms of the Settlement Agreement because Plaintiff filed a worker’s compensation claim through third parties Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., American Zurich Insurance, and Avitus Group (collectively “Lien Holders”). (Declaration of Geronimo Perez, ¶ 4, Ex. 1.) Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s refusal to execute a release as to these Lien Holders prohibits Defendants’ release of the settlement funds. Thus, Defendants ask that if the court is to enforce the Agreement, it enforce it on condition that:

(1) Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel maintain an amount in the client trust account sufficient to satisfy the workers’ compensation lien and any associated costs or expenses relating thereto, and,

(2) Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel agree to satisfy the workers’ compensation lien, including any associated costs or expenses relating thereto, and to indemnify Cross-Defendants and their counsel against any issues, claims, and/or costs, including, but not limited to, attorney’s fees, that may arise from the workers’ compensation Lien.

(See Opposition to Motion to Enforce Settlement, 5:25-6:4.)

A basic but careful reading of the Settlement Agreement indicates that Defendants concerns are unfounded and actually encompassed in the Settlement Agreement. First, section G of the Settlement Agreement provides that Plaintiff’s counsel keep all settlement proceeds in trust until such time as all liens and/or claims have been fully paid, satisfied, and/or released.” (Glassman Decl., Ex. 1: ¶ G.1 (emphasis added).)  Second, the Settlement Agreement “expressly stipulates” that Plaintiff will “defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Defendants from any and all lawsuits, causes of action, demands and/or claims of any nature whatsoever that may be made or instituted by any such lien holders for the purpose of enforcing any liens attaching to these settlement proceeds." (Id., Ex. 1, ¶ G.2 (emphasis added).).

Accordingly, the Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement is GRANTED.

Plaintiff seeks an award of $1,500.00 for reasonable attorney fees and costs associated with this motion. The Settlement Agreement provides that “should any dispute arise out of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.” (Id., Ex.1, ¶ M.9.) Here, Plaintiff is the prevailing party. Defendants failed to disburse the settlement agreement proceeds within 45 days after execution of the agreement. The amount requested is reasonable.

Defendants are ordered to disburse all proceeds from the Settlement Agreement in this case within 10 days from the date of this order. The fees and costs awarded in the amount of $1,500.00 shall be paid within 30 days.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where ONLINE TURCKING INC is a litigant

Latest cases where PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BANAFSHE P. RYAN