This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/28/2020 at 09:30:21 (UTC).

MATTHEW GALLAGHER, ET AL VS. DR. ANDRES J. SOLORZA, ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/31/2017 MATTHEW GALLAGHER filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against DR ANDRES J SOLORZA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WILLIAM D. STEWART. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6788

  • Filing Date:

    05/31/2017

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

WILLIAM D. STEWART

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Cross Defendants and Not Classified By Court

GALLAGHER MATTHEW

TRIPLETT KAREN CUADRA

Defendants, Cross Defendants and Not Classified By Court

DR. SOLORZA ANDRES J.

RODEO REALTY INC. A CALIFORNIA

REAL ESTATE EBROKER INC. A CALIFORNIA

DR. YINH JANETH M.

PARK SUSAN M.

GALLAGHER MATTHEW

TRIPLETT KAREN CUADRA

EBROKER INC.

BUILDING SPECS INC. DBA BUILDING SPECS INSPECTION SYSTEMS

MCGRATH CONTRACTING

SALEM BEN

Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs, Cross Defendants and Not Classified By Court

RODEO REALTY INC. A CALIFORNIA

REAL ESTATE EBROKER INC. A CALIFORNIA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Cross Defendant and Plaintiff Attorneys

JORDAN LAW GROUP APLC

JORDAN LAW GROUP A PROFESSIONAL CORP.

GHOLIAN ARTIN

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

LURIE ZEPEDA SCHMALZ HOGAN & MARTIN

JOSHUA D. NAGGAR LAW OFFICE

YACOUBIAN & POWELL LLP

LAW OFFICES OF RAFFY BOULGOURIAN

SPILE LEFF & GOOR LLP

RIDGEWAY CHRISTOPHER M

FINSTEN JAMES JACOB

LEFF ANDREW LINCOLN

Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

FINSTEN JAMES JACOB

LEFF ANDREW LINCOLN

JORDAN LAW GROUP APLC

JORDAN LAW GROUP A PROFESSIONAL CORP.

SPILE STEVE

 

Court Documents

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [NOTICE OF REJECTION - REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL]

1/27/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [NOTICE OF REJECTION - REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL]

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT ...)

10/25/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT ...)

Proof of Service by Mail

9/24/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Case Management Statement

9/24/2019: Case Management Statement

Declaration - DECLARATION OF BEN SALEM

8/30/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF BEN SALEM

Declaration - DECLARATION OF ANDREW LEFF

8/30/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF ANDREW LEFF

Summons

5/31/2017: Summons

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Cross-Compl fld- No Summons Issued

7/25/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Cross-Compl fld- No Summons Issued

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice of Motion

7/27/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice of Motion

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Opposition

8/10/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Opposition

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Request for Dismissal-Partial

8/11/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Request for Dismissal-Partial

Request for Judicial Notice

8/11/2017: Request for Judicial Notice

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2017-10-18 00:00:00

10/18/2017: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2017-10-18 00:00:00

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/24/2018: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Objection - Objection evidentiary

10/26/2018: Objection - Objection evidentiary

Substitution of Attorney

12/4/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Opposition - Opposition to evidentiary objections

10/31/2018: Opposition - Opposition to evidentiary objections

Declaration - Andres J. Solorza

10/9/2018: Declaration - Andres J. Solorza

92 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/26/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (submission of Default Judgment by declaration) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (re Sanctions including Dismissal) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Real Estate Ebroker, Inc., a California (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by Real Estate Ebroker, Inc., a California (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Karen Cuadra Triplett (Plaintiff); Matthew Gallagher (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2020
  • DocketNotice of Rejection - Request For Dismissal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([Notice of Rejection - Request For Dismissal]); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (submission of Default Judgment by declaration) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2020
  • Docketat 4:04 PM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Nunc Pro Tunc Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
109 More Docket Entries
  • 07/20/2017
  • DocketCross-Compl fld - Summons Issued; Filed by Rodeo Realty, Inc., a California (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Rodeo Realty, Inc., a California (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2017
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Matthew Gallagher (Plaintiff); Karen Cuadra Triplett (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2017
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Matthew Gallagher (Plaintiff); Karen Cuadra Triplett (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2017
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Matthew Gallagher (Plaintiff); Karen Cuadra Triplett (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Matthew Gallagher (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2017
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Matthew Gallagher (Plaintiff); Karen Cuadra Triplett (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Matthew Gallagher (Plaintiff); Karen Cuadra Triplett (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC066788    Hearing Date: October 25, 2019    Dept: A

Gallagher v Solorza

Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Calendar:

17

Case No.:

EC066788

Hearing Date:

October 25, 2019

Action Filed:

May 31, 2017

Trial Date:

Not Set

MP:

Defendant, Cross-Complainant, Cross-Defendant Rodeo Realty, Inc.; and Cross-Defendant Ben Salem

RP:

N/A

ALLEGATIONS:

This is a fraud and concealment action arising out of a real estate transaction whereby Plaintiffs Matthew Gallagher and Karen Cuadra Triplett purchased the real property located at 11822 Kling Street, Valley Village, CA 91607. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants/sellers Dr. Janeth M. Yinh and Dr. Andres J. Solorza (“Seller Defendants”) failed to disclose unpermitted structures on the residential property, as well as the need for multiple repairs on the property that were a result of unpermitted and/or substandard renovations. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Susan Park was the Seller Defendants’ real estate agent and that Defendant Real Estate eBroker, Inc. was the real estate broker for the sale of the property. Defendant Rodeo Realty Inc. was Plaintiffs’ real estate broker.

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on May 31, 2017, and, after seeking leave to amend, which was granted on May 24, 2019, filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on May 28, 2019. The FAC alleges causes of action for: (1) Negligent Misrepresentation; (2) Intentional Misrepresentation; (3) Fraudulent Concealment; (4) Negligence; (5) Breach of Statutory Duty; and (6) Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

PRESENTATION:

The instant Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement was filed on August 30, 2019. No opposition has been received.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Defendant, Cross-Complainant, Cross-Defendant Rodeo Realty, Inc.; and Cross-Defendant Ben Salem move for determination of good faith settlement.

DISCUSSION:

Under Code of Civil Procedure §877.6, “[a]ny party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors . . . 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 tortfeasor or co-obligors.” Code of Civ. Proc. §877.6(a). The statute aims at two competing policies: “(1) The equitable sharing of costs among the parties at fault and (2) the encouragement of settlements.” Erreca’s v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal. App. 4th 1475, 1487. A determination under §877.6(a) by the court “shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor . . . for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” Id. subd. (c). “The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.” Id. subd. (d). To demonstrate lack of good faith, the opposing party must “demonstrate, if he can, that the settlement is so far ‘out of the ballpark’ in relation to [certain enumerated factors] as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute.” Nutrition Now, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal. App. 4th 209, 213. To make this determination, the Court must rely “on the basis of experience rather than speculation, [and] a court may enlist the guidance of the judge’s personal experience and of experts in the field.” Cahill v. San Diego gas & Elec. Co. (2011) 194 Cal. App. 4th 939, 959.

In determining whether a settlement is so far out of the ballpark that it is inconsistent with the statute, the factors to consider include 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 condition 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. Finally, practical considerations obviously require that the evaluation be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement.” Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 488, 499. As a starting point, “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. It is only when “the good faith nature of a settlement is disputed [that] it is incumbent upon the trial court to consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors.” Id.

On review of the moving papers, the Court concludes that Rodeo Realty, Inc. and Ben Salem have failed to set forth a prima facie basis for establishing a right to relief, as they have failed to produce the proposed Settlement Agreement for the Court and the other parties to consider as part of the motion. See J. Allen Radford Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 216 Cal. App. 3d 1418 (the Second District reversed an approved good faith settlement when the confidential terms were not disclosed to a party opposing the motion, but were only reviewed in camera by the Court); Mediplex of California, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 34 Cal. App. 4th 748 (the Fourth District held that a party seeking a good faith settlement cannot disclose only the ‘barebone’ terms of the agreement, but must provide the entire confidential agreement to the party opposing the settlement agreement). While there are no parties opposing the instant motion, such as in the cases cited, the Court reasons that any party may oppose the motion if terms demonstrating collusion are brought to light, which is impossible absent the provision of the settlement agreement together with the motion. Moreover, the Court cannot perform its own review of the terms of the settlement agreement without the moving parties providing the agreement for the Court to review.

---

RULING: Deny without prejudice.

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Defendant, Cross-Complainant, Cross-Defendant Rodeo Realty, Inc.; and Cross-Defendant Ben Salem’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement came on regularly for hearing on October 25, 2019, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION IS DENIED.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE