Defendant's Motion for Determination for Good Faith Settlement; Defendant's Request to File Documents Under Seal
Accordingly, pursuant to Government Code, section 946.6, the Court GRANTS the petition. CV-25-011679 - BAUSER, TIMOTHY vs GREEN, MATTHEW MILTON - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions - CONTINUED to July 21, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22. The hearing on this matter is continued on the Court's own motion for further review and consideration. The hearing is CONTINUED to July 21, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22. PR-25-000754 - In the Matter of THE GEORGE GARY VENIOT LIVING TRUST - a) Petitioner Tawna Veniot's Motion to Compel Responses from Respondent, Dana Garth, to Special Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions Against Dana Garth for Misuse of the Discovery Process - CONTINUED to June 12, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. b) Petitioner Tawna Veniot's Motion to Compel Responses from Respondent, Dana Garth, to Form Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions Against Dana Garth for Misuse of the Discovery Process - CONTINUED to June 12, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. c) Petitioner Tawna Veniot's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions Against Dana Garth for Misuse of the Discovery Process - CONTINUED to June 12, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22. a-c) These matters are CONTINUED on the Court's own motion to June 12, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22, to be heard with the related motion on calendar that day.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23: CV-24-008187 - GUILLEN, CLAUDIA vs BELMARE SENIOR LIVING LLC - a) Defendant's Motion for Determination for Good Faith Settlement - GRANTED, and unopposed. b) Defendant's Request to File Documents Under Seal - GRANTED, and unopposed. (a) MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 877, 877.6) RULING: GRANTED. Defendant Milestone Retirement Communities, LLC's motion for determination of good faith settlement is unopposed and is granted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6.
In determining whether a settlement is made in good faith, the Court has considered the factors articulated in Tech Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, including: (1) a rough approximation of Plaintiff's total recovery and the settling defendant's proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) the recognition that a settling defendant should pay less in settlement than if found liable at trial; (4) the allocation of settlement proceeds; (5) the settling defendant's financial condition and insurance coverage; and (6) the absence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed at injuring the interests of non settling defendants.
Based on the evidence submitted, including the declarations filed in support of the motion, the Court finds that: The settlement amount falls within a reasonable range of Milestone Retirement Communities, LLC's potential proportional liability when viewed in light of Plaintiff's claimed damages and the evidence regarding comparative fault; The settlement reflects a reasonable compromise and appropriately accounts for litigation risks and costs; Milestone Retirement Communities, LLC's limited financial condition and lack of applicable insurance coverage support the reasonableness of the settlement amount; The settlement was reached through arm's length negotiations following mediation with an experienced neutral; and There is no evidence of collusion, fraud, or other improper conduct designed to shift an unfair share of liability to the non-settling defendant.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Accordingly, the Court finds the settlement was made in good faith. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, the settlement bars any claims for contribution or equitable indemnity against Milestone Retirement Communities, LLC by any non-settling party.
b) REQUEST TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550) RULING: GRANTED. Defendant Milestone Retirement Communities, LLC's request to file the Declaration of Benjamin Russell and Exhibits B, C, and E under seal is unopposed and is granted. After considering the moving papers, the Court makes the following express findings pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d): There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the records at issue, including the confidentiality of settlement agreements and non’public discovery materials; The overriding interest supports sealing the records; There is a substantial probability that the overriding interest would be prejudiced if the records were not sealed; The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored, as it applies only to the declaration and exhibits that disclose confidential settlement terms and non’public discovery materials; and No less restrictive means exist to protect the overriding interest.
The Clerk is directed to file the Declaration of Benjamin Russell and Exhibits B, C, and E under seal. All other filings shall remain publicly accessible. CV-25-006431 - PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC vs DUCEY, ANDREW - Plaintiff's Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts be Deemed Admitted - GRANTED, and unopposed. The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(a).)
Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff's request. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(c); St. Mary's v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4 th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted. The Court notes certain discrepancies in the proposed order relative to the subject requests. Specifically, the order differs from Requests 3 and 5, in that a different charge-off creditor is named therein. In addition, the order differs from Request 6 with regard to the amount of the unpaid balance.
Plaintiff shall submit a revised form of order correcting these errors. CV-25-006641 - BANK OF AMERICA NA vs GONZALEZ, CRYSTAL M - Plaintiff's Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts be Deemed Admitted - GRANTED, and unopposed. The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(a).) Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff's request. (Code Civ.
Proc. Sec. 2033.280(c); St. Mary's v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4 th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted. The Court notes the proposed order referenced certain attached documents, the genuineness of which are at issue in the subject requests for admission herein, but the subject attachments are not present as part of the proposed order in the Court's file. Plaintiff shall submit a revised form of order correcting this error.
CV-26-003220 - HARRELL, DEBRA vs CITY OF MODESTO - Defendant, City of Modesto's Demurrer to First Amended Writ of Mandamus - OVERRULED. The First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate adequately states claims for relief under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1094.5 and, in the alternative, 1085. At the pleading stage, the Court accepts all well’pleaded factual allegations as true and does not resolve factual disputes or weigh evidence. The First Amended Petition alleges a final administrative decision following a hearing at which evidence was taken and further alleges that the decision is unsupported by substantial evidence, was reached through a procedurally unfair process, and constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion.
These allegations fall squarely within the grounds for judicial review set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. Although Respondents argue that the City acted pursuant to its municipal code authority and complied with all