Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 21STCV29970, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV29970 Hearing Date: January 26, 2024 Dept: 40
|
JOEY
RESTAURANT (LOS ANGELES), INC., Plaintiff, v. MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants. |
Case No.: 21STCV29970 Hearing Date: 1/26/24 Trial Date: N/A [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: 1) OSC re: Default Judgment 2) The Motion by DEFENDANT SHERATON LICENSE OPERATING COMPANY, served and
sued as Doe I, for Good Faith Settlement |
The Court has reviewed the record and rules as follows.
1) The
Order to Show Cause Re Default Judgment will be continued.
While Plaintiff secured entry of default against Defendant UCLA
Health Auxiliary on February 28, 2022, since that time, Plaintiff has not filed
a default judgment package.
Plaintiff is reminded that “[w]hen a default is entered, the party
who requested the entry of default must obtain a default judgment against the
defaulting party within 45 days after the default was entered, unless the court
has granted an extension of time” and that this Court “may issue an order to
show cause why sanctions should not be imposed if that party fails to obtain
entry of judgment against a defaulting party or to request an extension of time
to apply for a default judgment within that time.” (Cal Rules of Court, rule
3.110, subd. (h).)
2) The
Court GRANTS the unopposed motion for determination of good faith settlement
filed by Defendant Doe 1, Sheraton License Operating Company, LLC on December
28, 2023.
The motion was brought pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd.
(a)(1). That provision requires notice to all joint tortfeasors and the
opportunity to be heard. However, here, the only non-settling defendant is UCLA
Health Auxiliary, which is in default. (See 2/28/22 Entry of Default.) Once
default is entered, the defendant is generally considered to be out of court
and is no longer permitted to make contentions on the merits, conduct
discovery, appear in court, or file pleadings and motions. (See Rios v.
Singh (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 871, 887; Garcia v. Politis (2011)
192 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1479; One 1986 Toyota Pickup (1995) 31
Cal.App.4th 254, 259; Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984)
155 Cal.App.3d 381, 385-386.) The only action that the defendant can take after
default has been entered is to attack the entry of default. (See Todd v.
Everett (1966) 247 Cal.App.2d 209, 212.) UCLA Health Auxiliary
therefore need not have been served due to its defaulted status and could not
have opposed Sheraton’s motion. The only other defendant in the complaint,
Marriott International, Inc., was dismissed on October 18, 2021.
The Court determines that at least five of the factors listed in Tech-Bilt,
Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assocs. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499-500
favor the settlement: (1) a rough approximation of Joey Restaurant’s recovery
and Marriott’s liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) the allocation
of proceeds among a single plaintiff; (4) a recognition that Marriott is paying
less in settlement than it would if it were found liable after a trial; and (5)
the lack of collusion, fraud, and tortious conduct aimed to injure the
interests of the non-settling defendants (UCLA Health Auxiliary). (See 12/28/23
Mot., pp. 6-11.)
Accordingly, the Court will GRANT the motion for determination of good
faith settlement and sign the proposed order lodged with the Court.