Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 22STCV17662, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17662    Hearing Date: March 2, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs Francisco Daganas Jr. (“Daganas”) and Melody Frayco (“Frayco”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants San Fernando Valley R. C. Flyers, Inc., Academy of Model Aeronautics, City of Los Angeles, Van Alexander (“Alexander”), and Does 1-50 for injuries Daganas sustained at Woodley Park Model Airplane Fields, which is a part of the Sepulveda Dam Recreation area in Van Nuys.  Plaintiffs allege that Daganas was standing in an area meant for spectators watching model aircraft activities at the fields when a radio-controlled model aircraft being operated by Alexander suddenly and without warning struck Daganas.  The complaint alleges causes of action for negligence against all defendants, premises liability against all defendants except Alexander, negligent infliction of emotional distress against all defendants, loss of consortium by Frayco against all defendants, and products liability against Does 25-50.

On December 1, 2022, Alexander filed a notice of settlement providing that Plaintiffs and Alexander reached an agreement to settle the claims against Alexander.  That same day, Alexander filed an application for determination of good faith settlement.  However, because the application reflected only select terms of an unfinalized settlement agreement, the Court set a hearing for the application for determination of good faith settlement for March 2, 2023, for the parties to file the complete terms of the agreement.  (Min. Order, Jan. 30, 2023.) 

The parties were expressly instructed that they were to file the complete terms of the settlement at least sixteen court days before the hearing with any response being due at least nine court days before the hearing as set forth in CCP § 1005, to no avail.  On February 8, 2023, Alexander’s counsel belatedly filed a declaration with the fully executed settlement between Plaintiffs and Alexander attached, and Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a declaration requesting the application be granted.  The proof of service attached to each declaration show they were electronically served on the parties.  However, sixteen court days before the instant hearing, with an additional two court days to account for electronic service, was February 2, 2023. 

Therefore, the declarations providing the full terms of the settlement did not provide the full statutory required notice to all parties.  The Court will continue the hearing on the application to ensure that all parties have sufficient notice of the moving papers prior to the hearing. 

The hearing on the application is continued to ___________________ at 1:30 p.m. in this Department.  Any opposition or response is due at least nine court days before the hearing pursuant to CCP § 1005. 

Moving Defendant Alexander is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 2^nd day of March 2023