On 05/12/2017 RICO STOLL filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against LAFONTAINE GLOBAL LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Van Nuys Courthouse East located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are HOLLY J. FUJIE, YOLANDA OROZCO, OWEN LEE KWONG, HUEY P. COTTON, AMY D. HOGUE and SHIRLEY K. WATKINS. The case status is Other.
****1002
05/12/2017
Other
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Van Nuys Courthouse East
Los Angeles, California
HOLLY J. FUJIE
YOLANDA OROZCO
OWEN LEE KWONG
HUEY P. COTTON
AMY D. HOGUE
SHIRLEY K. WATKINS
BENDIG GERDA
STOLL RICO
LAFONTIANE GLOBAL LLC
LAFONTAINE GLOBAL VEHICLES INC
GOMEZ JAVIER
LAFONTAINE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP LLC
DOES 1 TO 50
WALBY KRISTOPHER ALAN
LAFONTAINE IMPORT MOTORS INC
GP STRATEGIES CORPORATION DBA GP SANDY A SUBDIVIDION OF GP STRATEGIES
LAFONTAINE GLOBAL VEHICLES LLC
VICTORY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP INC
CAPPO MANAGEMENT XXVIII INC. DBA MARIN COUNTY FORD
LAFONTAINE GLOBAL VEHICLES INC DBA LAFONTAINE GLOBAL VEHICLES LLC
GP STRATEGIES CORPORATION
LAFONTAINE GLOBAL LLC A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
CAPPO MANAGEMENT XXVIII INC. DBA MARIN COUNTY FORD DOE 4
LAFONTAINE VOLKSWAGEN INC.
LAFONTAINE VOLKSWAGEN INC. DOE 5
VICTORY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP INC
GP STRATEGIES CORPORATION
CAPPO MANAGEMENT XXVIII INC. DBA MARIN COUNTY FORD DOE 4
LAFONTAINE STANDBY LLC
PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
STONEHOUSE CYNTHIA DIANE
BROWN JAY D. ESQ.
GRGURIC SHERRY L. ESQ.
GOLDSTEIN ROY D.
FRIEDENTHAL DANIEL RAY ESQ.
GRGURIC SHERRY L.
GOLDSTEIN ROY DAVID
GRUPPIE GUY R
FRIEDENTHAL DANIEL RAY
FRESCH ELAINE KATHERINE
BROWN JAY D. ESQ.
GRGURIC SHERRY L. ESQ.
GRGURIC SHERRY L.
GOLDSTEIN ROY DAVID
FRESCH ELAINE KATHERINE
GOLDSTEIN ROY DAVID
GRUPPIE GUY R
FRIEDENTHAL DANIEL RAY
FRESCH ELAINE KATHERINE
7/24/2020: Memorandum of Points & Authorities
7/8/2020: Notice of Settlement
1/23/2020: Order - ORDER COURT'S ORDER RE: DEFENDANT CAPPO MANAGEMENT XXVIII INC. DBA MARIN COUNTY FORD'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1/23/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)
9/20/2019: Reply - REPLY EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS IN REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
9/11/2019: Order - ORDER RULING ON MSJ/MSAI
8/30/2019: Reply - REPLY EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
7/10/2019: Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
5/30/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)
2/26/2019: Opposition - Opposition NON-PARTY GP STRATEGIES CORPORATION'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO SUBPOENA AND OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR MO
2/20/2019: Reply - Reply SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT GP STRATEGIES CORPORATION'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF SHERRY L. GRGURIC; DECLARATIO
1/29/2019: Opposition - Opposition Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant GP Strategies Corporation's Notice of Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities
1/29/2019: Declaration - Declaration Declaration of Cynthia D. Hafif-Stonehouse in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant GP Strategies Corporation's Notice of Motion and Motion to Quash Service of Summo
1/11/2019: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
12/31/2018: Request for Judicial Notice
11/9/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)
8/15/2017: PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE; ETC
DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Gerda Bendig (Plaintiff)
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department T, Shirley K. Watkins, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement (CCP 877.6) - Not Held - Vacated by Court
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department T, Shirley K. Watkins, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Not Held - Vacated by Court
DocketDeclaration (DECLARATION OF CYNTHIA D. HAFIF-STONEHOUSE ON CASE STATUS RE OSC; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTION HEARING); Filed by Gerda Bendig (Plaintiff)
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department T, Shirley K. Watkins, Presiding; Jury Trial ((14-16 day est.)) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated
DocketOrder (Re: Cappo Management XXVIII, Inc.?s Motion For Good Faith Settlement Determination); Filed by Cappo Management XXVIII, Inc. dba Marin County Ford (Doe 4) (Defendant)
DocketMemorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by LaFontaine Standby, LLC and dba LaFontaine Global Vehicles, LLC (Doe 2) (Defendant); GP Strategies Corporation and dba GP Sandy, a subdividion of GP Strategies (Doe 1) (Defendant); LaFontaine Global, LLC, a limited liability company (Defendant)
DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by GP Strategies Corporation and dba GP Sandy, a subdividion of GP Strategies (Doe 1) (Cross-Complainant)
DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Gerda Bendig (Plaintiff)
DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Kristopher Alan Walby (Defendant)
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Gerda Bendig (Plaintiff); Rico Stoll (Plaintiff)
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Gerda Bendig (Plaintiff); Rico Stoll (Plaintiff)
DocketAFFIDAVIT OF DUE DILIGENCE
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Gerda Bendig (Plaintiff); Rico Stoll (Plaintiff)
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS & COMPLAINT
DocketDECLARATION OF SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST
DocketDeclaration; Filed by Gerda Bendig (Plaintiff); Rico Stoll (Plaintiff)
DocketComplaint; Filed by Gerda Bendig (Plaintiff); Rico Stoll (Plaintiff)
DocketSUMMONS
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1) NEGLIGENCE MOTOR VEHICLE (WRONGFUL DEATH) ; ETC
Case Number: BC661002 Hearing Date: August 06, 2020 Dept: T
THERE ARE THREE TENTATIVE RULINGS:
RICO STOLL, et. al.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LAFONTAINE GLOBAL, LLC; et. al.
Defendants. |
| CASE NO: BC661002
Dept. T 8:30 a.m. August 6, 2020 |
Cross-Complainant Cappo Management XXVIII dba Marin County Ford (“Cappo”) moves to amend their Cross-Complaint in order to add a claim for express indemnification against Cross-Defendant GP Strategies Corporation dba GP Sandy (“GP Sandy”).
As to the requirements of CRC 3.1324, at issue is whether the declaration of Cappo’s Counsel, Mikhail Mdinaradze (“Mdinaradze”) provided sufficient facts to show when the new facts were discovered and the reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier. Mr. Mdinaradze’s declaration attached to the motion and attached to the reply fail to present any testimony as to when the new fact was discovered – the new fact being the indemnification provision in the contract between GP Sandy and Cross-Defendant Lafontaine Standby LLC (“Lafontaine”) to indemnify Lafontaine’s “suppliers.” GP Sandy provides that the contract was produced to Cappo in June 2019. Cappo’s Reply does not dispute this contention. Assuming that Cappo discovered the indemnification provision, there is sufficient showing that the filing of this motion on June 16, 2020 – about a year after discovery of the indemnification provision – is delayed.
Further, it is noted that Cappo’s original cross-complaint alleged an indemnification cause of action and thus Cappo’s argument that they were required to wait for the express indemnification cause of action to ripen is contradicted by their own pleading.
As such, Mr. Mdinaradze’s declaration failed to present facts showing when the new facts were discovered and a reason why the request was not made earlier.
Unreasonable delay in bringing the motion is not sufficient grounds to deny the motion. GP Sandy must show prejudice. The chronology of events in this action shows that GP Sandy settled the claims against them in February 2020. GP Sandy filed their motion for determination of good faith settlement on March 11, 2020. GP Sandy filed the motion relying upon the theory that all claims, inclusive of those alleged in Cappo’s original cross-complaint would be barred upon a finding that the settlement was in good faith. Far West Fin'l Corp. v. D & S Co., Inc. (1988) 46 Cal. 3d 796, 815-816. However, due to the coronavirus pandemic, GP Sandy’s motion was not heard on April 7, 2020 and is now being heard. In the interim, Cappo filed the instant motion which would effectively thwart GP Sandy’s settlement and keep GP Sandy in the action. It is noted that claims for express indemnification are not barred by a finding of good faith settlement. Bay Develop., Ltd. v. Sup.Ct. (Home Capital Corp.) (1990) 50 Cal. 3d 1012, 1019. GP Sandy will be prejudiced in that the time, funds and efforts expended in obtaining the settlement and filing the concurrent good faith settlement motion would be negated if the instant motion to amend is granted. GP Sandy would be required to continue to defend this action despite having entered a settlement with Plaintiff which would effectively remove GP Sandy from the case. With the fact that Cappo’s motion was filed after GP Sandy settled the claims against and filed the good faith settlement motion, there is sufficient showing of prejudice against GP Sandy.
The motion for leave to amend is unpersuasive and is, therefore, denied.
2. MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT BY KRISTOPHER ALAN WALBY
No opposition has been received. For the reasons as set forth in the moving papers: GRANTED.
3. MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT BY LAFONTAINE STANDBY LLC AND GP STRATEGIES CORPORATION ALSO D/B/A GP SANDY, A DIVISION OF GP STRATEGIES
No opposition has been received. For the reasons as set forth in the moving papers: GRANTED.