This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/22/2020 at 08:14:15 (UTC).

SUSAN KOEPKE GREEN VS SCOTT ALLAN SITNIK

Case Summary

On 04/05/2018 SUSAN KOEPKE GREEN filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against SCOTT ALLAN SITNIK. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CHRISTOPHER K. LUI and DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0611

  • Filing Date:

    04/05/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

DANIEL M. CROWLEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

KOEPKE-GREEN SUSAN

Defendants and Respondents

SITNIK SCOTT ALLAN

DOES 1-100

Not Classified By Court

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BERGENER JAMES M.

BERGENER JAMES MICHAEL

ALGORRI MARK STEVEN

NOLAN PATRICK SEAN

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

GATES O'DOHERTY GONTER & GUY LLP

GATES PETER JOHN

NG JASMINE H

 

Court Documents

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER SETTING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL) OF 03/02/2020

3/2/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER SETTING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL) OF 03/02/2020

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF NOTICE OF INTENT TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND MOVE FOR A NEW TRIAL

3/3/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF NOTICE OF INTENT TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND MOVE FOR A NEW TRIAL

Notice of Ruling

2/19/2020: Notice of Ruling

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE CESAR RODRIGUEZ, CSR #13269

2/13/2020: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE CESAR RODRIGUEZ, CSR #13269

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER, DEFENDANT ALAN SITNIK'S MOTION FO...)

2/18/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER, DEFENDANT ALAN SITNIK'S MOTION FO...)

Response - RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

11/22/2019: Response - RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

Brief - BRIEF STATEMENT OF DISPUTED FACTS RE: BIFURCATED TRIAL AS TO ISSUE OF SETTLEMENT ONLY

11/8/2019: Brief - BRIEF STATEMENT OF DISPUTED FACTS RE: BIFURCATED TRIAL AS TO ISSUE OF SETTLEMENT ONLY

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEVER/BIFURCATE THE LITIGATION AND FOR ADVANCEMENT OF TRIAL ONTHE ISSUE THAT THE CASE HAS SETTLED; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTH

8/7/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEVER/BIFURCATE THE LITIGATION AND FOR ADVANCEMENT OF TRIAL ONTHE ISSUE THAT THE CASE HAS SETTLED; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTH

Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STAY THE DECLARATORY RELIEF ACTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

7/22/2019: Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STAY THE DECLARATORY RELIEF ACTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

7/3/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

NOTICE OF NAME CHANGE

9/10/2018: NOTICE OF NAME CHANGE

Association of Attorney

11/16/2018: Association of Attorney

Notice of Deposit - Jury

4/5/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: NOTICE OF RELATED CASES) OF 06/19/2019

6/19/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: NOTICE OF RELATED CASES) OF 06/19/2019

DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

5/17/2018: DEFENDANTS ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT'S DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

5/17/2018: DEFENDANT'S DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

4/27/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

4/5/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

29 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/05/2021
  • Hearing04/05/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 28 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for New Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2020
  • DocketNotice (Notice of Withdrawal of Notice of Intent to Vacate Judgment and Move for A New Trial); Filed by Susan Koepke-Green (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • Docketat 5:46 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Setting Motion for New Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/02/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Setting Motion for New Trial) of 03/02/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2020
  • DocketNotice of Intent to Move for New Trial; Filed by Susan Koepke-Green (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Scott Allan Sitnik (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2020
  • Docketat 11:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Ruling on Submitted Matter - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/18/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Ruling on Submitted Matter, Defendant Alan Sitnik's Motion fo...) of 02/18/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
41 More Docket Entries
  • 09/10/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Scott Allan Sitnik (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Scott Allan Sitnik (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • DocketDEFENDANT'S DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Scott Allan Sitnik (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • DocketDEFENDANTS ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Susan Koepke-Green (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Susan Koepke-Green (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC700611    Hearing Date: February 13, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On April 5, 2018, Plaintiff Susan Koepke-Green (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Scott Allan Sitnik (“Defendant”) alleging negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on April 7, 2017.

On June 19, 2019, the Court found case number BC700611 to be related to case number 19STCV02276.

On August 20, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to bifurcate trial in allowing Defendant’s fourth affirmative defense for good faith settlement to be tried before Plaintiff’s negligence claim.

On October 9, 2019, the Court ordered Defendant to reserve a motion for summary judgment in the Court’s Reservation System for February 13, 2020 at 1:30 p.m.  The Court also ordered a briefing schedule in relation to the February 13, 2020 hearing in order.

A trial setting conference is set for February 13, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Pasadena Athletic Association (“Moving Party”) asks the Court to enter summary judgment against Plaintiff Peter Tamny (“Opposing Party”) and in favor of Moving Party because Moving Party did not owe a duty to Opposing Party.

LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.”  (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)  “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.”  (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.)  A defendant moving for summary judgment “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)  “Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.”  (Ibid.)  “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.”  (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.”  (Avivi, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 467; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

The Court initially notes that this motion is not a typical motion for summary judgment.  On October 9, 2019, the Court heard the parties at a trial setting conference.  The Court sought to limit the issues to be tried through creating a summary judgment briefing schedule regarding whether the parties have entered into a settlement agreement or not.  As such, the Court now addresses this issue.

The existence of a contract “requires parties capable of contracting, their consent, a lawful object, and a sufficient cause of consideration.”  (J.B.B. Investment Partners Ltd. v. Fair (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1, 9 (citing Civ. Code § 1550).)  Consent requires an offer an acceptance.  (DeLeon v. Verizon Wireless, LLC (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 800, 813.)  The inclusion of a different term in an alleged acceptance constitutes a counteroffer.  (See Bias v. Wright (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 811, 820.)  A counteroffer extinguishes the original offer.  (Apex Engineering Co. v. North Am. Oil Consolidation (1926) 76 Cal.App. 683, 687-688.)

Plaintiff and Defendant have submitted a joint statement of facts regarding the whether a settlement agreement has been entered into.  This statement establishes the following.  On April 7, 2017, Plaintiff and Defendant were involved in an automobile collision.  (Joint Statement (“JS”), ¶ 1.)  On January 15, 2018, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant offering to settle Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant for the available insurance policy limits of $25,000.  (JS, 2.)  The offer was subject to a number of terms and conditions.  (JS, ¶¶ 2A-2K.)

The joint statement of facts also establishes the following.  The settlement offer included a term stating Plaintiff will not agree to indemnify or hold harmless Defendant or State Farm for any claims arising out of the settlement other than for statutory liens in certain circumstances explained in the offer.  (JS, 2I.)  Additionally, the offer was to expire on Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 12:00 p.m., Pacific Standard Time unless a Plaintiff’s counsel received a signed acceptance, requested declarations, requested documentation, release, and the settlement check at a certain location before the deadline.  (JS, 2K.)  Further, a proposed acceptance that did not comply with the exact and precise terms and conditions set forth within the conditions would be deemed a rejection of the offer.  (Ibid.)

The joint statement of further establishes the following.  On January 26, 2019, Walter Allen, a representative for Defendant’s insurer called Plaintiff’s counsel and mailed Plaintiff’s counsel a letter asking about issues regarding an agreement to hold State Farm harmless and issues regarding specificity of liens and the required declaration.  (JS, ¶¶ 6-7.)  On February 12, 2018, Mr. Allen contacted Plaintiff’s counsel and advised Plaintiff’s policy limit offer was accepted and faxed a release in the amount of $25,000. (JS, 8, Exh. C.) 9.)

Defendant’s undisputed material facts are irrelevant.  The first material fact states the demand letter was not faxed to State Farm on January 15, 2018 or January 16, 2018, but rather sent by email and mail on January 16, 2018.  The second material fact states Mr. Allen did not receive a response from Plaintiff’s counsel to his clarification letter dated January 26, 2018, so Mr. Allen called Plaintiff’s counsel to follow up on February 12, 2018.  Neither of these facts are probative to show that Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a settlement agreement.

Further, the Court finds the parties have not entered a settlement agreement.  The terms of the release State Farm faxed to Plaintiff states Plaintiff releases Defendant, four other named parties, and their agents liable from all claims arising from the April 7, 2017 collision.  This term is directly in conflict with the terms of Plaintiff’s settlement offer, which provided Plaintiff does not release State Farm from liability.  Accordingly, this constituted a counteroffer, extinguishing State Farm’s ability to accept Plaintiff’s original offer.  There is no evidence submitted to the Court showing Plaintiff accepted State Farms’ counteroffer.  Plaintiff’s mere acknowledgement of receiving the counteroffer does not show Plaintiff assented to be bound by its terms.  Accordingly, the motion is properly denied.

CONCLUSION

The motion is DENIED.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.