Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV40249, Date: 2023-01-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV40249 Hearing Date: January 30, 2023 Dept: 74
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – CENTRAL District
Department
74
|
vs. |
Case
No.: |
21STCV40249 |
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing
Date: |
January
30, 2023 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEFENDANT
SIGNAL RESTORATION WEST LLC’S MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT WITH PLAINTIFF
STEPHEN FISCHER |
||
MOVING PARTIES: Defendant Signal Restoration West LLC
RESPONDING
PARTY: None
Defendant Signal Restoration West LLC’s
Motion for Good Faith Settlement
The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply papers
filed in connection with this motion.
BACKGROUND
This is a landlord-tenant dispute.
On November 2, 2021, Stephen Fischer (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action
against ERP Operating Limited Partnership (“ERP”), Equity Residential
Management, LLC, (“Equity”), and Signal Restoration West, LLC (“Signal”)
(collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff
filed a First Amended Complaint on December 6, 2021, alleging that Defendants
performed negligent work in remediating his residential apartment after two
fires occurred in the apartment building, resulting in his constructive
eviction from the apartment.
Plaintiff’s operative complaint asserts the following causes of
action: (1) negligence; (2) premises liability; (3) violations of the County of
Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance; (4) Violations of the Los Angeles
County Covid-19 Eviction Moratorium; (5) Negligence Per Se Based Upon
Violations of the California Fire Prevention Law; (6) Constructive Eviction;
(7) Breach of Warranty of Habitability; (8) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; and
(9) Violations of the County of Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance,
Anti-Harassment.
On August 18, 2022, Signal filed an initial motion for determination
of good faith settlement, which was set for hearing on October 10, 2022. The motion was not accompanied by a proof of
service. At the hearing, the Court
ordered the motion off calendar given a lack of evidence of proper service of
the motion. (10/10/22 Minute Order.) On October 18, 2022, Signal filed the instant motion
for a determination of good faith settlement pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 877.6. The Court notes
the instant motion is likewise not accompanied by a proof of service indicating
the motion was served on all parties to the action. There is no filed
opposition.
Code of Civil Procedure
section 877.6 permits the court to evaluate a settlement between a plaintiff
and a defendant when the defendant is a joint tortfeasor with other
non-settling defendants. A good faith
settlement under section 877.6 will bar any claims for equitable contribution
or comparative indemnity.
Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6,
subdivision (a)(2) requires the filing of a proof of service for an application
of good faith settlement; service may be either personal service, or service by
certified mail with return receipt requested. Signal did not file a proof of
service documenting it had served its motion on all parties. And although the
Declaration of J. Kyle Gaines states a stipulation concerning the settlement
exists and attests the stipulation is attached as an exhibit to the
Declaration, no such stipulation accompanies the declaration. Because of the
lack of proper service, the court orders Signal’s motion for good faith
settlement off calendar.
Defendant Signal is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
_____________________________
Colin Leis
Judge of the Superior Court