This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/10/2019 at 07:41:01 (UTC).

SUSAN RUSSOESI ET AL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Case Summary

On 09/19/2017 SUSAN RUSSOESI filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CITY OF LOS ANGELES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. SEIGLE and AMY D. HOGUE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6442

  • Filing Date:

    09/19/2017

  • 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

LAURA A. SEIGLE

AMY D. HOGUE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

RUSSOESI SUSAN

RUSSOLESI RONALD

RUSSOLESI SUSAN

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

LOS ANGELES CITY OF

DOES 1 TO 100

DO LINH

HERRERA VICTOR M

HERRERA CRISTINA

LE BICH

LIN DO

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

DO LINH

LE BICH

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

HIEPLER MARK O.

CLEMOW GINA MARIE

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

FEUER MICHAEL N. CITY ATTORNEY

KRAFT PHILIP

Cross Defendant Attorney

WHITAKER RONALD STEPHEN

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

12/5/2018: Minute Order

Ex Parte Application

12/5/2018: Ex Parte Application

Complaint

12/7/2018: Complaint

Unknown

1/9/2019: Unknown

Proof of Personal Service

1/25/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Personal Service

1/25/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

3/5/2019: Stipulation to Continue Trial/FSC [and Related Motion/Discovery Dates] Personal Injury Courts Only (Department 91, 92, 93, 97)

Minute Order

3/5/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

3/5/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Unknown

3/5/2019: Unknown

Answer

3/5/2019: Answer

Answer

3/13/2019: Answer

Notice

3/14/2019: Notice

PLAINTIFFS? NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

4/6/2018: PLAINTIFFS? NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM ADDRESS

11/28/2017: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM ADDRESS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

10/23/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

SUMMONS

9/19/2017: SUMMONS

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE: DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 835) ;ETC

9/19/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE: DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 835) ;ETC

15 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/19/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • Notice (of Continuance of FSC and Trial); Filed by SUSAN RUSSOLESI (Plaintiff); RONALD RUSSOLESI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • Answer (ANSWER OF THE CROSS-DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO LINH DO AND BICH LE?S CROSS- COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL); Filed by LOS ANGELES, CITY OF (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • at 2:35 PM in Department 4B, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Nunc Pro Tunc Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Personal Injury Courts Only (Central District); Filed by SUSAN RUSSOESI (Plaintiff); RONALD RUSSOLESI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • Answer (to Pltf First Amended Complaint for Damages); Filed by Bich Le (Defendant); Linh Do (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • Notice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Bich Le (Defendant); Linh Do (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by Bich Le (Cross-Complainant); Linh Do (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • Summons (on Amended Complaint (1st)); Filed by Bich Le (Defendant); Linh Do (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
19 More Docket Entries
  • 04/06/2018
  • Notice; Filed by SUSAN RUSSOESI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2017
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by SUSAN RUSSOESI (Plaintiff); RONALD RUSSOLESI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2017
  • NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM ADDRESS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • ANSWER OF THE DEFENDANT CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • Answer; Filed by LOS ANGELES, CITY OF (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by SUSAN RUSSOESI (Plaintiff); RONALD RUSSOLESI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by SUSAN RUSSOESI (Plaintiff); RONALD RUSSOLESI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE: DANGEROUS CONDITION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 835) ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC676442    Hearing Date: December 19, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

On September 19, 2017, plaintiffs Susan Russolesi and Ronald Russolesi (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against the City of Los Angeles alleging negligence and loss of consortium concerning a tree branch falling off a parkway tree and injuring Susan Russolesi. On December 7, 2018, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to add defendants Linh Do (erroneously sued as “Do Lin”), Bich Le, Victor Herrera and Cristina Herrera. Plaintiffs served the First Amended Complaint on Victor Herrera and Cristina Herrera by substitute service on January 10, 2019. They have not answered and were dismissed from this action on November 4, 2019.

Linh Do and Bich Le (“Settling Defendants”) move for an order determining their settlement of $100,000.00 is in good faith. Plaintiffs, Settling Defendants, and City of Los Angeles filed a stipulation to a judicial determination of a good faith settlement.

The Court must approve any settlement entered into by less than all joint tortfeasors or co-obligors. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6.) This requirement furthers two sometimes-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.) If the settlement is made in good faith, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (c).) The non-settling tortfeasors or obligors bear the burden of demonstrating the absence of good faith in the settlement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).)

To demonstrate a lack of good faith, the non-settling party must show that the settlement is so far “out of the ballpark” as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of section 877.6. (Nutrition Now, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 209, 213.) The Court will typically consider: (1) the plaintiff’s (roughly) approximated total recovery; (2) the settlor’s share of liability; (3) the size of the settlement at issue; (4) the distribution of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (5) the usual discount value when plaintiffs settle before trial; the settlor’s financial condition and insurance policy limits; and (6) whether there is evidence of “collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants.” (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.) These factors will be evaluated accordingly to what information is available at the time of settlement. (Ibid.) “When no one objects, the barebones motion which sets forth the ground for good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is sufficient” for the Court to grant a motion for determination of good faith settlement. (City of Grand Terrace, supra, 192 Cal.App.3d at p. 1261.)

Settling Defendants agree to pay $100,000 to Plaintiffs in order to settle the matter. This amount is the policy limit of their homeowner’s insurance. Plaintiff Susan Russolesi’s medical expenses to date total $50,388 and she also claims $77,2780.60 in future medical expenses, and other miscellaneous expenses (housekeeper and cancelled vacation) of $5,3000. Plaintiff Ronald Russolesi claims unspecific damages for loss of consortium. Plaintiffs allege that the City of Los Angeles received multiple complaints of tree branches falling from dead or dying trees near Settling Defendant’s property as early as 2015, and that Settling Defendants were on notice of the tree. The City of Los Angeles did not file an opposition to this Motion and entered into a stipulation of good faith. The settlement agreement was reached during mediation with Judicate West.

Having considered the Tech-Bilt factors, the Court finds that the settlement figure of $100,000 is within the “ballpark.” Settling Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED. The Court finds this settlement was made in good faith and any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor is barred from asserting further claims against Linh Do and Bich Le for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: BC676442    Hearing Date: November 04, 2019    Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

On September 19, 2017, plaintiffs Susan Russolesi and Ronald Russolesi (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against the City of Los Angeles. Plaintiffs allege negligence and loss of consortium concerning a tree branch falling off a parkway tree and injuring Susan Russolesi. On December 7, 2018, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to add defendants Linh Do (erroneously sued as “Do Lin”), Bich Le, Victor Herrera and Cristina Herrera. Plaintiffs served the First Amended Complaint on Victor Herrera and Cristina Herrera by substitute service on January 10, 2019. They have not answered.

Linh Do and Bich Le (“Settling Defendants”) move for an order determining their settlement of $100,000.00 is in good faith. Plaintiffs, Settling Defendants and City of Los Angeles filed a stipulation to a judicial determination of a good faith settlement.

However, Settling Defendants did not file a proof of service showing service of the motion for determination of good faith settlement on defendants Victor Herrera and Cristina Herrera. The court cannot rule on the motion in the absence of notice to all parties. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT4B@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.