This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/01/2020 at 16:57:24 (UTC).

VINDRI RODRIGUEZ VS CEDAR CORPORATION

Case Summary

On 06/15/2017 VINDRI RODRIGUEZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CEDAR CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are PATRICIA D. NIETO, GEORGINA T. RIZK, MARK A. BORENSTEIN and KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5198

  • Filing Date:

    06/15/2017

  • 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

PATRICIA D. NIETO

GEORGINA T. RIZK

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

RODRIGUEZ VINDRI

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

HILL MCDONALD'S

DOES 1 TO 100

CEDAR CORPORATION

CONTRACT DECOR INC.

CEDAR CORPORATION DBA HILL MCDONALD'S

Defendants and Respondents

HILL MCDONALD'S

DOES 1 TO 100

CEDAR CORPORATION

Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

CONTRACT DECOR INC.

CEDAR CORPORATION DBA HILL MCDONALD'S

Cross Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

MOES - THROUGH 100 INCLUSIVE

CONTRACT DECOR INC.

Other

BORDIN-WOSK JOSHUA ESQ.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

KASHANI JONATHAN M.

KASHANI JONATHAN M ESQ.

BORDIN-WOSK JOSHUA D.

BURTON LINDSAY N. ESQ.

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

BREMER KEITH G. ESQ.

DAVIS BENJAMIN ADAM ESQ.

HENKE ROBERT ELDON ESQ.

PLACE KEVIN L.

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

BREMER KEITH G. ESQ.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

DAVIS BENJAMIN ADAM ESQ.

HENKE ROBERT ELDON ESQ.

ELDER BRAD MACLEAN ESQ.

BREMER KEITH GLENN

PEDERSEN LANCE JOHN ESQ.

Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

HENKE ROBERT ELDON ESQ.

ELDER BRAD MACLEAN ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO C...)

5/8/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO C...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

6/22/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

Order - ORDER AMENDED[PROPOSED]ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CEDAR CORPORATION DBA MCDONALD'S #2963'S APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

4/13/2020: Order - ORDER AMENDED[PROPOSED]ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CEDAR CORPORATION DBA MCDONALD'S #2963'S APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

10/7/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF ROBERT E HENKE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION CONTESTING GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND CEDAR CORP DBA MCDONALD'S #2963

2/7/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF ROBERT E HENKE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION CONTESTING GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND CEDAR CORP DBA MCDONALD'S #2963

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA RULE 3.1204

2/10/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA RULE 3.1204

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF ROBERT HENKE IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION CONTESTING GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT

2/10/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF ROBERT HENKE IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION CONTESTING GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT CEDAR CORPORATION DBA HILL MCDONALD'S #2963'S OPPOSITION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT CONTRACT DECOR, INC.'S EX PARTE APPLICATION CONTESTING THE GOOD FAITH SE

2/13/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT CEDAR CORPORATION DBA HILL MCDONALD'S #2963'S OPPOSITION TO CROSS-DEFENDANT CONTRACT DECOR, INC.'S EX PARTE APPLICATION CONTESTING THE GOOD FAITH SE

Joinder

2/13/2020: Joinder

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

2/18/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND ALL RELATED DATES

2/28/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND ALL RELATED DATES

ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CEDAR CORPORATION DBA MCDONALD'S #2963

1/19/2018: ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF CEDAR CORPORATION DBA MCDONALD'S #2963

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave of court for plaintiff Vindri Rod...)

1/30/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Leave of court for plaintiff Vindri Rod...)

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/20/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

NOTICE OF RULING RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT

12/8/2017: NOTICE OF RULING RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES

6/15/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES

ANSWER OF CEDAR CORPORATION DBA MCDONALD'S # 2963 (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS CEDAR CORP. DBA HILL MCDONALD'S) TO THE COMPLAINT OF VINDRI RODRIGUEZ

7/10/2017: ANSWER OF CEDAR CORPORATION DBA MCDONALD'S # 2963 (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS CEDAR CORP. DBA HILL MCDONALD'S) TO THE COMPLAINT OF VINDRI RODRIGUEZ

Association of Attorney -

8/10/2017: Association of Attorney -

52 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/02/2021
  • Hearing02/02/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/20/2021
  • Hearing01/20/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2020
  • DocketOrder (AMENDED[PROPOSED]ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CEDAR CORPORATION dba MCDONALD'S #2963'S APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT); Filed by Cedar Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2020
  • DocketNotice (NOTICE OF COURT ORDER RE: TRIAL DATE VACATED AND TRIAL SETTING CONFERECE SET 6/22/20); Filed by Vindri Rodriguez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2020
  • Docketat 08:49 AM in Department 29, Kristin S. Escalante, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
97 More Docket Entries
  • 10/24/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS-COMPLAINT; ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2017
  • DocketAssociation of Attorney

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2017
  • DocketAssociation of Attorney; Filed by Vindri Rodriguez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2017
  • DocketANSWER OF CEDAR CORPORATION DBA MCDONALD'S # 2963 (ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS CEDAR CORP. DBA HILL MCDONALD'S) TO THE COMPLAINT OF VINDRI RODRIGUEZ

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Cedar Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Vindri Rodriguez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Vindri Rodriguez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC665198    Hearing Date: March 05, 2020    Dept: 29

Rodriguez v. Cedar Corp.

Motion by Defendant, Contract Décor, Inc (Doe 1), Contesting the Good Faith Settlement Between Plaintiff, Vindri Rodriguez, and Defendant, Cedar Corporation dba McDonald’s #2963 is DENIED. The Court approves the settlement pursuant to section 877.6(a)(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

1/17/2020, Cedar Corporation (“McDonald’s”) filed an Amended Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement, indicating it settled with Plaintiff for $275,000.00. Defendant Contract Décor, Inc. (“Décor”), filed this motion to contest settlement.

The burden of establishing that a settlement was not made in good faith falls on the contesting party, Décor. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6(d); L. C. Rudd & Son, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 742, 748.) The settling party, McDonald’s, need only demonstrate that a settlement has been made. The burden shifts to the contesting party to demonstrate that the settlement does not meet the relevant factors for determination of good faith settlement under Tech-Bilt v. Inc. v. Woodward Clyde Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1261-1262.)

The factors identified in Tech-Bilt are not to be rigidly applied. North County Contractor's Assn. v. Touchstone Ins. Services (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 1085, 1090. Those factors are:

1. Approximation of plaintiff’s total recovery and settlor’s proportionate liability.

2. The amount paid in settlement.

3. Recognition that the settlor should pay less in settlement.

4. Allocation of the settlement proceeds.

5. The settlor’s financial condition and insurance policy limits.

6. Evidence of collusion, fraud or tortious conduct between the settlor and plaintiff.

7. The settlement must be within the reasonable range of the settlor’s share of liability.

Determination is based on information available at the time of settlement. The settlement should not be “grossly disproportionate” to what a reasonable person would estimate the settling party’s liability to be. (Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1349.)

Décor has not met its evidentiary burden of demonstrating that the settlement was not made in good faith. Decor has not presented any evidence that the settlement is grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person would estimate the settling party’s liability to be or that there is any collusion, fraud or tortious conduct between the settling parties. Nor is there evidence that would support a finding a bad faith based on any other Tech Bilt factor.

Thus, the Court denies Decor’s motion to contest the settlement.

The Court approves the settlement pursuant to section 877.6(a)(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and thereby determines that the settlement was in good faith. The Court’s determination shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault. (Code Civ. Proc. § 877.6(c).)

Moving party is ordered to give notice.