Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV17662, Date: 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17662    Hearing Date: April 14, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

FRANCISCO DAGANAS, JR., ET AL.,

                        Plaintiffs,

            vs.

 

SAN FERNANDO VALLEY R.C. FLYERS, INC., ET AL.,

 

                        Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO: 22STCV17662

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

 

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m

April 14, 2023

 

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.)

Despite being instructed that all filings needed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 1005, Alexander’s counsel belatedly filed a declaration with the fully executed settlement between Plaintiffs and Alexander attached, and Plaintiffs’ counsel belatedly filed a declaration requesting the application be granted. The proof of service attached to each declaration show they were not electronically served on the parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1005 and 1010.6.

As a result, the Court continued the hearing to April 14, 2023 to ensure that all parties have sufficient notice of the moving papers prior to the hearing. (Min. Order, March 2, 2023.)

At this time, Alexander has agreed to settle its claims with Plaintiffs for $300,000.  Alexander seeks an order from the Court finding that the settlement is in good faith. 

It is noted that no opposition has been filed at this time; any opposition to the motion was due on or before April 3, 20223.  The burden on a motion for determination of good faith settlement rests squarely on the party opposing the finding of good faith.  (Code Civ. Proc. §877.6(d).)  In light of the lack of opposition, no party has met that burden.  The motion for determination of good faith settlement is therefore granted.

 

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

 

        Dated this 14th day of April, 2023

 

 

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim

Judge of the Superior Court