Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV00834, Date: 2024-08-05 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT  (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE.  4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020) 
IMPORTANT:  In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely.  The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited.  The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants. 
ALSO NOTE:  If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar.  THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 20STCV00834    Hearing Date: August 5, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Continue Trial, or in the alternative, Dismiss the Cross-Complaint filed by Cross-Defendant Olive RHF Housing Partners, L.P.

Tentative

The motion to continue trial is denied as moot.

The motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice.

Background

On January 8, 2020, Elizabeth Cano (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against City of Los Angeles (“City”), Retirement Housing Foundation (“RHF”), and Does 1 through 25 for dangerous condition of public property, negligence, and premises liability arising out of an alleged slip and fall occurring on April 30, 2019, on the sidewalk in front of 222 South Olive Street in Los Angeles.

On February 19, 2020, City filed an answer and cross-complaint against RHF and Roes 1 through 25.

On March 9, 2021, RHF filed an answer to City’s cross-complaint and its own cross-complaint against City. On April 12, 2021, City filed an answer to RHF’s cross-complaint.

In or about March 2021, Plaintiff and RHF settled.  RHF applied for a good faith settlement determination; it was not opposed, and on May 14, 2021, the Court entered an order determining the settlement between Plaintiff and RHF to be in good faith under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6.

In May and June 2021, the Court, at the request of Plaintiff, dismissed all causes of action in the complaint against RHF with prejudice; the Court, at the request of City, dismissed all causes of action in City’s cross-complaint against RHF with prejudice; and the Court, at the request of RHF, dismissed all causes of action in RHF’s cross-complaint against City with prejudice.

On March 7, 2024, City amended its cross-complaint to name Olive RHF Housing Partners, LP (“Olive”) as Roe 1.

On July 10, 2024, Olive filed an answer to City’s cross-complaint.  On July 16, 2024, Olive filed a cross-complaint against City.

On July 10, 2024, Olive filed this motion to continue trial, or in the alternative, dismiss under California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6.

While the motion was pending, the parties filed a stipulation to continue trial to June 2025, which the Court approved.

On July 25, City filed an opposition to the request for dismissal.  (The opposition was served on July 19 but was not filed at the time, likely because of the cyber attack directed at the Los Angeles County Superior Court on or about that same date.)  Olive filed a reply on July 25.

Legal Standard

In a case involving two or more alleged joint tortfeasors, a party may seek a court order under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (a) determining that a settlement between the plaintiff and one or more of the alleged tortfeasors is in good faith. Under subdivision (c), a judicial determination of good faith bars other joint tortfeasors who received notice of the motion “from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor … for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (c).)

Discussion

Olive’s motion to continue trial is denied as moot, as the Court has already continued the trial date to June 2, 2025.

Also in its moving papers, Olive briefly argues that City’s cross-complaint should be dismissed under Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, subdivision (c).  Olive states (but provides no evidence) that it is a subsidiary of RHF, and Olive argues that the good faith settlement bar should be extended to subsidiaries of settling parties. 

The motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice.  A subsidiary is a separate legal entity from the parent (subject to certain exceptions, such as the alter ego doctrine).  Olive was not named as a party at the time of the settlement; when RHF applied for a good faith determination it gave no notice to the City that the Court’s determination would apply to its subsidiaries (whether Olive or any other entity); and nothing in the Court’s order finding the settlement to be in good faith mentioned or referred to RHF’s subsidiaries (whether generally or Olive specifically.).  Perhaps on some other record, with additional facts or legal arguments, Olive might establish a viable defense on this ground, but on this record Olive has failed to do so.  Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied.  The denial is without prejudice in that Olive may assert this same defense at or before trial (through some other motion).

The request to continue trial is DENIED AS MOOT.

The motion to dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES AS MOOT the request to continue trial.

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion to dismiss.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.