Motion for Good Faith Settlement

Useful Rulings on Motion for Good Faith Settlement (CCP 877.6)

Recent Rulings on Motion for Good Faith Settlement (CCP 877.6)

1-25 of 10000 results

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

However, character evidence is admissible to prove other facts such as “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident, or whether a defendant in a prosecution for an unlawful sexual act or attempted unlawful sexual act did not reasonably and in good faith believe that the victim consented.” (Evid. Code, § 1101(b).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RE: PET’N ON FIRST AND FINAL REPORT OF ADMINISTRATOR

Need petition (may be ex parte) showing good cause for allowing late election, and order. Otherwise you will need amended petition eliminating spouse’s portion and a recalculation of statutory fees. Proposed election must comply with LR 7.305. See PrC §§ 13500, 13501, 13502 14.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: FIRST ACCOUNT OF TRUSTEE AND PET’N FOR ITS SETTLEMENT

FILED ON 08/13/19 BY KIMBERLY CZIRKELBACH PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status Note: Residuary Beneficiaries’ Response and Objections filed by American Cancer Society, Inc., Feed the Children, Inc., Leukemia & Lymphoma Society and ALSAC/St. Judge Children’s Research Hospi...

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

MATTER OF THE JOSEPH LEE REVOCABLE TRUST

RE: PET'N FOR SETTLEMENT ON FIRST ACCOUNT FILED ON 08/11/17 BY ELIZABETH SOLOWAY PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE -- See also Line # 1 -- Need appearances to report status DOUGLAS C LEE JOHN A HARTOG ELIZABETH SOLOWAY MICHAEL J.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ESTATE OF CZESLAW KENTZER

Stipulation and Order Approving Settlement filed 8-21-2020. DIANE J CRAWFORD KENDAL E FLETCHER MARILYN L DRAPEL KENDAL E FLETCHER SANDRA DRAPEL KONSTANTINE DEMIRIS THE AMENDED AND RESTATED DECLA PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances. This is a competing petition. 2. Proof of Subscribing Witness Form DE-131 with copy of will attached. PrC § 8220. 3.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

NADIA KINDA, ET AL. V. PANTOJA TRUCKING, INC., ET AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Good Faith Settlement Tentative

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

RE: PET’N TO APPROVE PMT OF COMPENSATION TO COUNSEL

Note: Petition to Approve Settlement Agreement; Request to Vacate the Trial Currently Set For September 25, 2020, is set for 11-12-2020. EDWARD CHARLES GARNER KATHLEEN NEWSOM DAVID A. BROWN LINDA L GARNER LINDA L. GARNER MARTHA GILSON DAVID G KNITTER MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY GINA D. BOER VALERIE ANNE FERREIRA CHARLES A. TRIAY VALERIE FERREIRA HOWARD E. KANE WILLIAM MICHAEL NORTON CHARLES A. TRIAY WILLIAM MICHAEL NORTON HOWARD E. KANE

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: FIRST AND FINAL REPORT ON WVR OF ACCT, FOR FEES, COSTS, FINAL DIST FILED ON 05/11/20 BY TIM F BAILEY

LR 7.317 Note: Petition for Settlement of First and Final Account filed by Birthe Kirsch 9-3-2020 is set for hearing 12-22-2020. Absent appearances or objections, court will continue this matter to 9-3-2020. BIRTHE KIRSCH ZACHARY EPSTEIN JACK F. KIRSCH PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2. Proof of Holographic Instrument Form DE-135. PrC § 8222 3. Order for Probate Form DE-140 Notes: 1. Original will is attached to petition. 2.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Judge

    Fenstermacher

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

JOSE M IBARRA VS BAKER COMMODITIES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

Discussion The parties jointly move for approval of the settlement of Plaintiff’s PAGA action. The Proposed Settlement The Settlement provides that the parties agree to settle the instant action for the non-reversionary Gross Settlement Amount (“GSA”) of $450,000.00. (Haines Decl., Exh. 1, § III.2.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

IN THE MATTER OF BRIAN P. KOSTER

Conservator to state good cause, give facts and request the allowance in the body of the petition. Petitioner to submit either a supplement or an amended accounting addressing all of the deficiencies. Proposed Order to be lodged prior to hearing per Local Rule 10.00.D.1. __________________ The court discourages in-person appearances in Department J6 during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Appearances in Department J6 should be made by CourtCall (audio or video) whenever possible.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Family Law

  • Sub Type

    Conservatorship

TANYA CRUZ VS SKATELAND ENTERPRISES INC

Skateland Enterprises: 9-18-2020: A notice of settlement was filed on 9-16-2020 such that the court assumes the motions set for 9-22-2020 are moot and taken off calendar.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Legal Standard Under Code of Civil Procedure, section 664.6: 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. (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK VS EDWARD GARRICK

Motion to Enforce Settlement A. Legal Standard Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, “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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY VS JOSE RODRIGUEZ

Plaintiff’s attorney declares that he mistakenly believed a global settlement had been reached and dismissed this action prior to receiving Defendant’s first payment check. (Motion, Nivinskus Decl., ¶¶2-3 and Exh. 1.) Defense counsel has not responded to Plaintiff’s counsel’s efforts to resolve the issue. (Id. at ¶4 and Exh. 2.) Plaintiff, therefore, seeks to reinstate the case in order to continue its prosecution against Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TAULER SMITH LLP VS JOSEPH VALERIO, ET AL.

In opposition, Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s counsel did not meet and confer in good faith. Despite defense counsel proposing a telephonic meet and confer, Plaintiff’s counsel apparently missed the scheduled call and made no effort to speak on the phone again. (Opp., Gaw Decl., ¶¶2-4 and Exh. A.) In fact, Plaintiff’s counsel’s final meet and confer email on May 19, 2020 cut off further discussion regarding the discovery. (Id. at Exh. B.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DANIEL MCCULLOUGH VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

Defendant Sophie Marcus has settled with Plaintiff for $100,000 and now seeks a finding that the settlement was made in good faith. The City of Los Angeles contests that application. A copy of the settlement agreement has not been provided to the City of Los Angeles. (Declaration of Honey A. Lewis, ¶ 4.) The Court cannot consider the good faith of the settlement unless all parties have had an opportunity to review the terms of the settlement agreement. (See Mediplex of Cal., Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

THOMAS NORIEGA V. DAVID SPURR

In this case, the parties reached the settlement through an arms-length mediation followed by subsequent settlement negotiations and issuance and acceptance of a mediator’s proposal with an experienced wage and hour class action mediator. (Perry Decl., ¶¶ 32, 33.) The proposed class counsel’s declarations shows that he is experienced with this type of litigation and that they believe that the proposed settlement is a good result for the proposed settlement class. (Perry Decl., ¶¶ 6-9.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS INSURANCE CO. V. GONZALES

“[E]ven if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may—of itself—be a valid reason for denial.” (P&D Consultants, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

LESLIE SPANN VS ELAINE WAILING CHU

CCP § 2016.040 provides, “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” Neither of Defendant’s purported meet and confer letters show a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve any issues concerning the subject requests. Rather, the letter dated 1/20/20 simply informs Defendant her responses were deficient a motion would be filed, which was filed the next day.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

ALEX MORENO VS ALEJANDRO RIVERRA, ET AL.

On May 9, 2019, Plaintiff Alex Moreno (Plaintiff) filed suit against Alejandro Riverra aka Alejandro Angulo (Defendant), alleging: (1) fraud; (2) conversion; (3) embezzlement; (4) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (5) breach of contract; (6) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On March 16, 2020, default was entered against Defendant. Defendant now moves to set aside the entry of default.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

4425 MAPLEWOOD LLC, VS JESSE PIMENTEL, ET AL.

Discussion Plaintiff having amended the Complaint once without leave of court, the Motion must demonstrate good cause for the timing of this Motion and that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff’s managing agent declares that as of the filing of the Motion to Reclassify the holdover damages had increased from less than $25,000.00 to approximately $34,000.00. (Motion, Hoffman Decl., ¶¶1-5.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MERLE TAYLOR, ET AL. V. ROBERT HOUSTON, ET AL.

Plaintiffs reached a settlement with defendants Rushmyfile, Inc., FMC Lending, Inc., and Andrew Dioli, as reflected in a notice of conditional settlement filed on August 14, 2019. On July 1, 2020, the court dismissed the complaint as to those defendants. Motion: Defendants Rushmyfile, Inc., FMC Lending, Inc., and Andrew Dioli move the court “to have the court associated with this case placed under seal.” It appears they meant to ask that the court place the entire record of this case under seal.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

ANDRE NEUMANN V. GISELA . NEUMANN, ET AL.

(B) That the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer failed to respond to the meet and confer request of the demurring party or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith.” Andre’s counsel filed a form declaration (Judicial Council Form CIV-140) stating that, at least five days before the responsive pleading was due, he met and conferred with the opposing party by email and they did not reach an agreement resolving the matters raised by demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK VS. MILLER

The court notes that this observation is technically true but that the statutory provisions allow for the opposition to be served at a later time where “good cause” is shown. This court finds good cause has been shown based upon the events at the hearing conducted on June 5, 2020. At that proceeding, the court admonished the Defendant that a motion for summary judgment was pending and that he had to file an opposition to the Plaintiff’s motion if he wanted to avoid the granting of Plaintiff’s motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CONS. OF DONOVAN SCHWARZROCK

RE: OBJECTION TO SETTLEMENT, PET’N FOR SURCHARGE FILED ON 07/17/20 BY KELLIE A HAYES PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances 2. Proposed order DONOVAN SCHWARZROCK KELLIE A HAYES SCOTT E POLING KONSTANTINE A DEMIRIS KONSTANTINE A DEMIRIS LAURIE SCHWARZROCK MATTHEW TALBOT MATTHEW B TALBOT PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Apparently superseded by Line 5.B DONALD P O'CONNELL NATHAN D. PASTOR MAY H HILL

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.