This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/18/2022 at 04:01:19 (UTC).

PAUL R MARKLEY, ET AL. VS DON WEAVER, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 12/14/2021 PAUL R MARKLEY filed an Other - Declaratory Judgment lawsuit against DON WEAVER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Torrance Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DEIRDRE HILL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0897

  • Filing Date:

    12/14/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other - Declaratory Judgment

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

DEIRDRE HILL

 

Party Details

Cross Defendants and Plaintiffs

LAW OFFICES OF PAUL R. MARKLEY

MARKLEY PAUL R

WEAVER DON

Defendants and Cross Defendants

WEAVER DON

WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA INC. AKA WHOLE FOODS MARKET

MRS. GOOCH'S NATURAL FOOD MARKETS INC. DBA WHOLE FOODS MARKET

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA INC. AKA WHOLE FOODS MARKET

MRS. GOOCH'S NATURAL FOOD MARKETS INC. DBA WHOLE FOODS MARKET

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Cross Defendant and Plaintiff Attorney

MARKLEY PAUL R

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

BENNETT MATTHEW E.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT; CASE MANAGEMENT CONF...)

5/12/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT; CASE MANAGEMENT CONF...)

Notice of Continuance

5/2/2022: Notice of Continuance

Case Management Statement

5/3/2022: Case Management Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE T...)

4/13/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE T...)

Motion to Enforce Settlement - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO DISBURSE SETTLEMENT FUNDS

4/14/2022: Motion to Enforce Settlement - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO DISBURSE SETTLEMENT FUNDS

Case Management Statement

3/23/2022: Case Management Statement

Answer - CROSS-DEFENDANTS' PAUL R. MARKLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS LAW OFFICES OF PAUL R. MARKLEY, ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

3/22/2022: Answer - CROSS-DEFENDANTS' PAUL R. MARKLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS LAW OFFICES OF PAUL R. MARKLEY, ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT / COURT JUDGMENT

3/23/2022: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT / COURT JUDGMENT

Case Management Statement

3/28/2022: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

3/29/2022: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

3/29/2022: Case Management Statement

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - PROOF OF SERVICE-CIVIL

3/29/2022: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - PROOF OF SERVICE-CIVIL

Proof of Personal Service

3/16/2022: Proof of Personal Service

Cross-Complaint

3/17/2022: Cross-Complaint

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

3/17/2022: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Answer - ANSWER OF DEFENDANT MRS. GOOCH'S NATURAL FOODS MARKET (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, INC.) TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

3/17/2022: Answer - ANSWER OF DEFENDANT MRS. GOOCH'S NATURAL FOODS MARKET (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, INC.) TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Summons - SUMMONS ON CROSS-COMPLAINT

3/17/2022: Summons - SUMMONS ON CROSS-COMPLAINT

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

2/4/2022: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

15 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/15/2022
  • Hearing09/15/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department M at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof Of Service; Failure to Prosecute Case; Failure to File Request For Entry of Default

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2022
  • Hearing09/15/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department M at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Enforce Settlement - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; Order to Show Cause Re: (Failure to File Proof Of Service; Failure to Prosecute Case; Failure to File Request For Entry of Default) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Enforce Settlement; Case Management Conf...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2022
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Paul R Markley (Plaintiff); Law Offices Of Paul R. Markley (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2022
  • DocketNotice of Continuance; Filed by Paul R Markley (Plaintiff); Law Offices Of Paul R. Markley (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2022
  • DocketNotice of Motion and Motion for an Order to Disburse Settlement Funds; Filed by Paul R Markley (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
14 More Docket Entries
  • 02/17/2022
  • DocketNotice and Acknowledgment of Receipt; Filed by Paul R Markley (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2022
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Paul R Markley (Plaintiff); Law Offices Of Paul R. Markley (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2022
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Paul R Markley (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2022
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Paul R Markley (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause (Hearing); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Paul R Markley (Plaintiff); Law Offices Of Paul R. Markley (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Paul R Markley (Plaintiff); Law Offices Of Paul R. Markley (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Paul R Markley (Plaintiff); Law Offices Of Paul R. Markley (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******0897 Hearing Date: May 12, 2022 Dept: M

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. M

PAUL R. MARKLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No.:

*******0897

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

DON WEAVER, et al.,

Defendant.

Hearing Date: May 12, 2022

Moving Parties: Plaintiff Paul R. Markley

Responding Party: None

Motion for an Order to Disburse Settlement Funds

The court considered the moving and opposition papers.

RULING

The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff is ordered to file a notice of related case in each case and serve all parties in each case.

BACKGROUND

On December 14, 2021, plaintiff Paul Markley ind. and as Law Offices of Paul R. Markley filed a complaint against Don Weaver and Whole Foods Market California, Inc. dba Whole Foods Market for declaratory relief.

On March 17, 2022, defendant Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Food Markets, Inc. dba Whole Foods Market filed a cross-complaint.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

CCP 664.6 states: “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. (b) For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following: (1) The party. (2) An attorney who represents the party. (3) If the party is an insurer, an agent who is authorized in writing by the insurer to sign on the insurer’s behalf.”

“A trial court, when ruling on a section 664.6 motion, acts as a trier of fact. Section 664.6’s ‘express authorization for trial courts to determine whether a settlement has occurred is an implicit authorization for the trial court to interpret the terms and conditions to settlement.’” Skulnick v. Roberts Express, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal. App. 4th 884, 889 (citation omitted).

CCP 187 states: “When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this Code.”

DISCUSSION

Under CCP 664.6, plaintiff Paul Markley requests an order allowing plaintiff to proceed with “negotiating the reductions” and distributing the “settlement funds” from an underlying case Markley settled on behalf of Don Weaver.

The complaint for declaratory relief alleges that there exists an actual and justiciable controversy between the parties. The court may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of a settlement. The underlying case [BC711443] has already been dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms of the settlement. There are multiple issues in this case as follows: A. [client Don] Weaver developed “cold feet” regarding the settlement after approving the settlement and requesting that all closing documents be finalized and the case dismissed. After this was done, he then told his attorney [Markley] to stop all work on the file. The only remaining work to be done is to negotiate the medical bills down to maximize plaintiff’s [Weaver] recovery and then disburse the funds to plaintiff [Weaver] and the medical providers. Thereafter, Weaver told his counsel [Markley] that counsel “knew what to do” but has refused to explain this cryptic response. B. Defendant Whole Foods refuses to re-issue the settlement draft without a court order. C. Without a court order the draft cannot be issued and the disbursements cannot be made.

The complaint further alleges that in the underlying [slip and fall personal injury] case, a mediation was held with Judge Joseph Biderman (Ret.). At the mediation, Markley represented Weaver. Weaver’s demand was $285,000 and then lowered to $250,000. The defendant’s [Whole Foods] top offer was $225,000. The parties did not settle that day. Over the next week, Markley with Weaver’s consent offered to settle for $235,000, which Whole Foods refused. After further discussions with Markley, Weaver authorized Markley to accept Whole Foods’ offer of $225,000. During discussions regarding accepting Whole Foods’ offer, Markley asked Weaver if he wanted Markley to accept the offer, sign the closing documents on his behalf, and to dismiss the case, “with the understanding that it could not be reopened.” Weaver “agreed that he understood and that was his wish.” The final paperwork was completed after contacting the court that the parties had reached a settlement. Thereafter, Weaver’s counsel Markley received the settlement draft but Weaver decided he did not want to go through with the settlement and instructed Markley not to sign the draft. Weaver then told Markley to stop all work on the case. Markley stopped all work on the case and has sent numerous emails and made numerous phone calls to Weaver, who will not answer the phone calls and has responded by email a couple times but does not state how he wants the case to proceed. His last email response was “you know what to do.” Due to the lack of communication, Markley is reticent to sign Weaver’s name to the check because Weaver requested that Markley stop work. Markley’s prayer for relief is that defendant Whole Foods reissue the settlement draft and that Markley move forward with deposit of the settlement funds and disbursement of the settlement funds.

The court notes that in BC711443 [Judge Murillo in Dept. 29] on November 16, 2021, the court denied plaintiff Weaver’s motion to reopen the case for an order to disburse settlement funds for lack of jurisdiction. The court noted in the minute order that the case had been dismissed with prejudice on February 20, 2020 after the parties settled for $225,000 and had not requested that the court retain jurisdiction under CCP 664.6.

The court finds that the motion is premature as the complaint for declaratory relief has not been decided and judgment entered. Further, it does not appear that CCP 664.6 is applicable to authorize disbursement of any funds because the underlying case is not pending and the court did not retain jurisdiction. Also, plaintiff Markley is not a party to the settlement between Weaver and Whole Foods. Markley has not provided any authority that he has standing to enforce the settlement agreement, against his client Weaver.

The motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of ruling.


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA INC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BENNETT MATTHEW E