Judge Richard Y. Lee, Case 30-2019-01074096 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2019-01074096, Date: 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Defendants/Cross-Defendants, Rhonda Jean Sittig and Larry Sittig (“the Sittigs”) move for an order determining that their settlement with Plaintiffs April Diaz and Michelle Urquidi were entered into in good faith pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6; that they be dismissed with prejudice from the Complaint of Michelle Urquidi filed on February 20, 2018 (Case No. 30-2018-00974513-CU-PA-CJC); that they be dismissed with prejudice from the Complaint of April Diaz filed on June 3, 2019 (Case No. 30-2019-01074096); and that they be dismissed with prejudice from the entirety of Cross-Complaint filed by Michelle Urquidi and Carlos Urquidi filed on July 12, 2019 (Case No. 30-2019-01074096) pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1382, and that the current case stay be lifted only for the hearing and determination of this motion.

As a threshold matter, the case is currently stayed pending the criminal case 18NM09185.

The caption to the instant motion states, “Request to Lift Stay for Hearing of the Motion Only,” and the notice of motion requests that the Court lift the current stay for hearing and determining this motion. However, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities contains no discussion as to this request. Notwithstanding this fact, given the nature of the motion and as there is no opposition, the Court will lift the stay in this case for the limited purposes of this motion.

The Sittigs contend that their settlements with Plaintiff April Diaz (“Diaz”) in the amount of $32,500, and Plaintiff Michelle Urquidi (“Urquidi”) in the amount of $12,500, were made in good faith based on the alleged injuries and evidence thereof as to each plaintiff and the comparative liability as to operators of the three vehicles including the decedent, Anthony King; Michelle Urquidi; and Defendant Rhonda Jean Sittig such that the Court should grant this motion. In turn, the Sittigs request that the Court dismiss, with prejudice, the Complaint filed by Ms. Diaz, the Complaint filed by Ms. Urquidi and Cross-Complaint filed by Ms. and Mr. Urquidi pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1382.

No opposition has been filed.

A notice of motion for good faith settlement determination “must list each party and pleading or portion of pleading affected by the settlement and the date on which the affected pleading was filed.” (California Rules of Court (“CRC”), rule 3.1382.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 provides alternative procedures to resolve whether a settlement was entered in good faith. If no contest is expected, a settling party may file an application for an order determining the good faith of the settlement. (CCP § 877.6(a)(2).) If a contest is expected, any party may file a motion for such a determination, utilizing standard motion procedures. (CCP § 877.6(a)(1).)

Here, the notice of motion states as follows:

The parties affected by the settlement are the remaining codefendants and/or cross-defendants on the complaint of plaintiff APRIL DIAZ (Case No. 30-2019-01074096-CU-PA-CJC) filed on June 3, 2019 (See Register of Actions (ROA) No. 2). Contingent upon a good faith determination, and terms of the settlement, defendants RHONDA JEAN SITTIG and LARRY SITTIG will be dismissed from the complaint of APRIL DIAZ. Contingent upon a good faith determination, and terms of the settlement, the complaint of plaintiff Michelle Urquidi (Case No. 30-2018-00974513-CU-PA-CJC) filed on February 20, 2018 would be dismissed entirely and/or moving parties will be dismissed. The remaining affected/operative pleading as to moving parties is the indemnity cross-complaint filed on July 12, 2019 by codefendants/cross-complainants MICHELLE URQUIDI and CARLOS URQUIDI (ROA No. 9) in the APRIL DIAZ matter (Case No. 30-2019-01074096-CU-PA-CJC). Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1382, defendants RHONDA JEAN SITTIG and LARRY SITTIG request that the entirety of the cross-complaint against them be dismissed with prejudice.

However, the Sittigs do not list each of these “remaining codefendants and/or cross-defendants” for either the Complaint of Plaintiff April Diaz, Case No. 30-2019-01074096 (the Diaz case), or the Cross-Complaint of Michelle Urquidi and Carlos Urquidi in the Diaz case. Thus, the notice of motion does not comply California Rules of Court, rule 3.1382.

The Court CONTINUES the motion to January 19, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. and ORDERS the Sittigs to file a notice of motion which fully complies with CRC, rule 3.1382.

The Sittigs to give notice.