This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/18/2022 at 07:20:37 (UTC).

MYRIAM KERR, ET AL. VS ALMAY, INC., ET AL.

Case Summary

On 06/14/2021 MYRIAM KERR filed a Personal Injury - Asbestos Product Liability lawsuit against ALMAY, INC . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DAVID S. CUNNINGHAM and STUART M. RICE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2475

  • Filing Date:

    06/14/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Asbestos Product Liability

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DAVID S. CUNNINGHAM

STUART M. RICE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

KERR MYRIAM

Defendants

ALMAY INC.

AVON PRODUCTS INC.

BARRETTS MINERALS INC.

BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA INC.

BRENNTAG SPECIALTIES LLC FKA BRENNTAG SPECIALTIES INC. FKA MINERAL PIGMENT SOLUTIONS INC. SUED INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO WHITTAKER CLARK & DANIELS INC.

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

CALAVERAS ASBESTOS LTD

CLINIQUE LABORATORIES INC.

CLINIQUE LABORATORIES LLC

COLOR TECHNIQUES INC.

COSMETIC SPECIALTIES INC. FDBA G&G SPECIALTY PRODUCTS CO.

COTY INC.

DAVION INC. AKA HABA-DAVION

DELTA BRANDS INC. DBA DELTA TRADE USA

DOLLAR TREE STORES INC.

GREENBRIER INTERNATIONAL INC.

HENRY COMPANY LLC

IDELLE LABS LTD.

17 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

PURDY STUART JAMES

CARON JOHN MICHAEL

Defendant Attorneys

KHARE VIIU SPANGLER

EVERETT SEYMOUR BERNARD III

GARRATT JUSTIN E.

HUIE JEREMY DARWIN

KATERNDAHL JOHN P.

ONGARO DAVID RAYMOND

POPOVICH JERRY CARL

WILLIAMSON IAN G.

RIDLEY SHAWN MICHAEL

FOLEY PATRICK J.

AMEELE KEITH M.

WEGLARZ CLAIRE CHRISTINE

ULLOA EDWARD RICHARD

LEE JAE HONG

MONROE MONICA WILLIAMS

MURRIN CHARLES P.

SHARP GARY DAVID

WEISS LINDSAY

 

Court Documents

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE CSR: RYAN WHEELER/ #13717

7/26/2022: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE CSR: RYAN WHEELER/ #13717

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PAYMENT OF SETTLEMENT ...)

7/26/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PAYMENT OF SETTLEMENT ...)

Motion re: - PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PAYMENT OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS BY BRISTOL-MEYERS SQUIBB AND REVLON, INC.; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF STUART J.

7/29/2022: Motion re: - PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PAYMENT OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS BY BRISTOL-MEYERS SQUIBB AND REVLON, INC.; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF STUART J.

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: GROUP (SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER, P.C.))

8/2/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: GROUP (SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER, P.C.))

Declaration - DECLARATION OF EDWARD P. ABBOT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY'S OPPOSITION TO 664.6 MOTION TO ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE SETTLEMENT

8/11/2022: Declaration - DECLARATION OF EDWARD P. ABBOT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY'S OPPOSITION TO 664.6 MOTION TO ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE SETTLEMENT

Opposition - DEFENDANT BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S 664.6 MOTION TO ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE SETTLEMENT

8/11/2022: Opposition - DEFENDANT BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S 664.6 MOTION TO ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE SETTLEMENT

Declaration - DECLARATION OF GAVIN J. ROONEY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY'S OPPOSITION TO CCP 664.6 MOTION TO ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE SETTLEMENT

8/11/2022: Declaration - DECLARATION OF GAVIN J. ROONEY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY'S OPPOSITION TO CCP 664.6 MOTION TO ENTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE SETTLEMENT

Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PAYMENT OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS BY BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB AND REVLON, INC.

8/17/2022: Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PAYMENT OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS BY BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB AND REVLON, INC.

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE CSR: TAMMIE MOORE/ #11525

8/24/2022: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE CSR: TAMMIE MOORE/ #11525

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PAYMENT OF SETTLEMENT ...)

8/24/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PAYMENT OF SETTLEMENT ...)

Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PAYMENT OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS BY BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB AND REVLON, INC.

7/19/2022: Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PAYMENT OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS BY BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB AND REVLON, INC.

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MICHAEL B. GIAQUINTO IN SUPPORT OF BMS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER ADMITTING GAVIN J. ROONEY TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE AN ORDER SHORTE

7/19/2022: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MICHAEL B. GIAQUINTO IN SUPPORT OF BMS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER ADMITTING GAVIN J. ROONEY TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE AN ORDER SHORTE

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION DEFENDANT BMS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER ADMITTING GAVIN J. ROONEY TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME

7/19/2022: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION DEFENDANT BMS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER ADMITTING GAVIN J. ROONEY TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF GAVIN J. ROONEY IN SUPPORT OF BMS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER ADMITTING GAVIN J. ROONEY TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE AN ORDER SHORTENING

7/19/2022: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF GAVIN J. ROONEY IN SUPPORT OF BMS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER ADMITTING GAVIN J. ROONEY TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE AN ORDER SHORTENING

Order - ORDER ORDER RE: BMS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER ADMITTING GAVIN J. ROONEY TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME

7/20/2022: Order - ORDER ORDER RE: BMS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER ADMITTING GAVIN J. ROONEY TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER ADMITTING GAVIN ...)

7/20/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER ADMITTING GAVIN ...)

Notice of Ruling - AFTER HEARING ON BMS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER ADMITTING GAVIN J. ROONEY TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME

7/22/2022: Notice of Ruling - AFTER HEARING ON BMS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER ADMITTING GAVIN J. ROONEY TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME

Reply - REPLY SUR-REPLY OF DEFENDANT BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL SETTLEMENT

7/25/2022: Reply - REPLY SUR-REPLY OF DEFENDANT BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL SETTLEMENT

216 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/14/2022
  • Hearing12/14/2022 at 1:45 PM in Department 15 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2022
  • Hearing12/14/2022 at 1:46 PM in Department 15 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2022
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 15; Hearing on Motion for Order (Compelling Payment of Settlement Funds by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Revlon Inc. on Behalf of Plaintiffs (Kerr-21STCV22475)) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Payment of Settlement ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/24/2022
  • DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CSR: Tammie Moore/ #11525); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2022
  • DocketReply (Plaintiffs Reply In Support Of Their Motion For An Order Compelling Payment Of Settlement Funds By Bristol-Myers Squibb And Revlon, Inc.); Filed by Myriam Kerr (Plaintiff); Robert Kerr (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2022
  • DocketDeclaration (of Edward P. Abbot in Support of Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb Company's Opposition to 664.6 Motion to Enter Judgment Pursuant to the Settlement); Filed by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2022
  • DocketDefendant Bristol-Myers Squibb Company's Opposition to Plaintiff's 664.6 Motion to Enter Judgment Pursuant to the Settlement; Filed by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2022
  • DocketDeclaration (of Gavin J. Rooney in Support of Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb Company's Opposition to CCP 664.6 Motion to Enter Judgment Pursuant to the Settlement); Filed by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/02/2022
  • Docketat 1:46 PM in Department 15; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) ((KERR-21stcv22475)) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
221 More Docket Entries
  • 07/21/2021
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2021
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2021
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2021
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Revlon Consumer Products Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 06/18/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Myriam Kerr (Plaintiff); Robert Kerr (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Myriam Kerr (Plaintiff); Robert Kerr (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******2475 Hearing Date: August 24, 2022 Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL SETTLEMENT PAYMENT

Plaintiffs seek an order under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 compelling Bristol-Meyers Squibb to make a settlement payment pursuant to a January 9 or January 14, 2022 settlement agreement. Plaintiffs state the settlement agreement required the settlement to be funded no later than 45 days from the receipt of an executed release, but they have yet to receive the payment. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ first motion because Plaintiffs did not file the settlement agreement at issue. Plaintiffs then re-filed the motion with a copy of the email chain Plaintiffs contend constitute the settlement.

The party seeking to enforce a settlement “must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties’ ( 664.6) or was made orally before the court. [Citation.]” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304.) Under section 664.6, if the parties “stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court . . . for settlement of the case . . . the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) “ ‘ “Although a judge hearing a section 664.6 motion may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment [citations], nothing in section 664.6 authorizes a judge to create the material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon.” ’ [Citations.]” (Machado v. Myers (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 779, 790.)

Plaintiffs state Bristol Myers Squibb and Revlon, Inc. agreed to settle this case for a certain amount in exchange for dismissals of both Bristol Myers Squibb and Revlon and both agreed to pay the settlement amount. (Motion at p. 3.) Plaintiffs point to a January 9, 2022 email from defense counsel (Exhibit A) and a January 14, 2022 release agreement (Exhibit C). (Ibid.) Bristol Myers Squibb argues Revlon had assumed Bristol Myers Squibb’s liabilities and had agreed to indemnify and defend Bristol Myers Squibb in this litigation. (Opposition at p. 2.) According to Defendant, Revlon agreed to settle the case and pay the settlement amount, Bristol Myers Squibb was merely a released party, and Bristol Myers Squibb did not sign any agreement. (Id. at pp. 1, 8.)

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A, an email chain, starts with an email from Plaintiffs’ counsel stating, “Please confirm that we are settled with Revlon in the below cases, as follows: Myriam Kerr – [redacted amount].” (Ex. A at p. 2.) Defense counsel responds “Confirmed.” (Id. at p. 1.) Plaintiffs’ counsel emails back, “Just to confirm, we are settled for the amounts indicated below. But as we have just discussed, we have agreed that payment will be made in each case 45 days from your receipt of a signed release in that case.” (Ibid.) Defense counsel again responded “Confirmed . . . .” (Ibid.) The emails do not mention Bristol Myers Squibb. The email chain contains the subject line “Revlon Settlements.” The first email states “we are settled with Revlon.” “Bristol Myers Squibb” and “BMS” do not appear anywhere in Exhibit A. Nothing in Exhibit A allows the inference that Bristol Myers Squibb was agreeing to pay a certain settlement amount.

Exhibit C is entitled Confidential Compromise and Release Agreement, states it is a compromise and release between Plaintiffs and Revlon and Bristol Myers Squibb, and is signed by Plaintiffs but not any defendant and not any defense counsel. Exhibit C states “Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff(s) the sum of [redacted] . . . .” (Ex. C at p. 3.) The document states, “‘Defendant(s)’ means Revlon, Inc.; Bristol Myers Squibb Company (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Charles of the Ritz, hereafter referred to as ‘Defendants’), . . . .” (Id. at p. 1.) Thus, the document can be interpreted to mean that both Revlon and Bristol Myers Squibb would pay Plaintiff the redacted amount. However, no defendant and no defense counsel signed Exhibit C. Without that signature, Exhibit C is not enforceable under section 664.6.

In addition, Bristol Myers Squibb points to a January 10, 2022 letter from Plaintiffs’ counsel to defense counsel regarding “Compromise Agreement between Revlon Consumer Products Corporation and Simon Greenstone Panatier (SGP) clients: Myriam Kerr, . . . .” (Defendant’s Ex. B at p. 1.) The letter states it “will serve to confirm our agreement that is our confidential settlement regarding the above-referenced cases. The consideration for this contractual agreement is not only the money exchanged in return for a release of the claims against Revlon Consumer Products Corporation, but also for the agreement to forego trial against Revlon Consumer Products Corporation in these cases.” (Ibid.) The letter refers to “Revlon Consumer Products Corporation’s obligations to pay the settlement proceeds under this agreement.” (Id. at p. 2.) The letter does not mention Bristol Myers Squibb. This document supports Defendant’s position that only Revlon was to pay the settlement amount.

Plaintiffs did not show a meeting of the minds in an agreement signed by the parties or their counsel, or even an email exchange between counsel, confirming that Bristol Myers Squibb is to pay the settlement amount to Plaintiffs. Because the Court cannot add terms to the settlement agreement or enforce terms that do not appear in the settlement agreement, the motion is DENIED.

The moving party is to give notice.



Case Number: *******2475 Hearing Date: July 26, 2022 Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL SETTLEMENT PAYMENT

Plaintiffs seek an order under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 compelling Bristol-Meyers Squibb to make a settlement payment pursuant to a January 9 or January 14, 2022 settlement agreement. Plaintiffs state the settlement agreement required the settlement to be funded no later than 45 days from the receipt of an executed release, but they have yet to receive the payment. (Motion at p. 3.)

There are several problems with this motion. First, Plaintiffs did not file a copy of the January 9, 2022 settlement agreement or January 14, 2022 settlement agreement. The party seeking to enforce a settlement “must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth ‘in a writing signed by the parties’ ( 664.6) or was made orally before the court. [Citation.]” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304.) Without the actual agreement at issue, the Court cannot determine the parties to the settlement or which agreement (January 9 or January 14 or both) is the pertinent settlement agreement. This is critical because Bristol-Myers asserts it did not sign the settlement agreement. Plaintiffs state the agreement is confidential. If so, Plaintiffs should follow the procedure set out in California Rule of Court, rule 2.551 by filing a motion for an order to seal the record or by filing a notice of the lodging of the confidential document.

Second, under section 664.6, if the parties “stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court . . . for settlement of the case . . . the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) Without a copy of the settlement agreement, the Court cannot determine the terms of the settlement agreement to enforce and enter judgment upon.

Third, Plaintiffs did not file evidence that they executed a release and delivered it to Bristol-Meyers, which according to Plaintiffs’ motion is a condition of Bristol-Meyers paying the settlement money. If this is a condition (which the Court cannot determine because it does not have a copy of the settlement agreement), the Court cannot require payment if this condition has not been satisfied.

The motion is DENIED.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where IDELLE LABS LTD. is a litigant

Latest cases where Almay Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where Color Techniques Inc is a litigant

Latest cases where DAVION INC. is a litigant