Motion to Offset in California

[Tentative] Order RE: defendants motion to offset prior attorneys fees award MOVING PARTY: Defendant Donald J. Trump RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed Motion to Offset Prior Attorneys Fees Award The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion. No opposition papers were filed. DISCUSSION Defendant Donald J.

State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (34-2012-00137019) Motion to Offset Damages Defendant State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's ("CDCR") Motion to Offset Damages is GRANTED. CDCR moves to offset Plaintiff Onalis Giunta's ("Plaintiff") economic damages by $34,690, which is the amount of her worker's compensation award.

Equitable considerations make it appropriate to offset these awards such that any amount owed to Royston is simply credited to the larger award owed to Bhola. Accordingly, Defendants Motion for an Offset is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to give notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 18, 2024 ___________________________________ Randolph M.

(1) MOTION TO OFFSET JUDGMENT; (2) THIRD-PARTY PARVIZ FAKHERI aka PARIS FAKHERI’S MOTION TO OFFSET JUDGMENT STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiff alleged that he was entitled to reimbursement of his capital contributions pursuant to an oral joint venture agreement by Defendants pertaining to the flipping of real property after the property had been sold for a profit. Defendants Arturo Rubenstein and Fab Rock Investments move to offset the judgment.

MOTION Notice Of Motion Of Motion To Offset Cross-Judgments CONTINUED TO 11/26: MOVING PARTY TO LODGE COURTESY COPIES PER LOCAL RULE 8.5. PLEASE ATTACH COVER LETTER CONFIRMING NEW HEARING DATE. (302/AJR/ju)

MOTION Notice Of Motion Of Motion To Offset Cross-Judgments COURT APPLIES OUTSTANDING AMOUNT OF $115,324.56 OF $570,000.00 AGAINST SEATON JUDGMENT OF $219,503.20. $104,179 IS THEN DEDUCTED FROM $320,088.00 LEAVING BALANCE OWING BY SEATON TO RUNEZ OF $215,909.00. (302/AJR/RS)

Currently before the court are defendants motion for an offset and motion to tax costs. Both are opposed. This matter previously came on before the court on December 22, 2022. (12/22/22 MO.) At that point, the court agreed that an offset for collateral source payments was appropriate but noted it could not determine the amount without additional evidence. The court also largely ruled on the motion to tax costs.

McKinney II The hearing on Plaintiff's motion to offset the settlement agreement is CONTINUED to September 28, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 15. The registry of actions reflects that an opposition was filed on September 7, 2021. The hearing on the motion is continued to provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file reply to the opposition. The parties are reminded that they must provide the court with courtesy copies and are asked to email the documents to Dept15@alameda.courts.ca.gov.

Defendants now move to offset the judgment. TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Arturo Rubenstein and Fab Rock Investments, LLC’s motion to offset judgment is GRANTED. The entire judgment of $1,193,735.68 as of the date of this Order is offset by Defendants’ larger judgment against Plaintiff in the Florida district court action.

PLT Amir Gnessin Engineering Inc; PLT Amir Gnessin Motion - Other (Motion for Equitable Offset and to Amend existing Judgment) The motion of Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants Gnessin and Amir Gnessin Engineering, Inc. (together “Gnessin”) for equitable offset of judgment amounts owed as between Gnessin and defendant/cross-complainant DC Partners, Inc. is granted. Plaintiffs are to submit a proposed amended judgment.

Defendant XL Specialty Insurance Company moves for an offset of the $250,000 settlement that Plaintiff received from Defendant LA Packing and to be declared the prevailing party. TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff’s motion to add interest to the jury’s award is DENIED. Defendant XL Specialty Insurance Company’s motion for an offset of the $250,000 settlement that Plaintiff received from Defendant LA Packing and to be declared the prevailing party is DENIED.

In that order, the New York Civil Court states: Upon the foregoing cited papers, the Decision/Order defendant's motion to offset and reduce the judgment in this action, is as follows: Plaintiff holds a judgment in this action against defendant in the principal sum of $13,575.00. Defendant alleges that she holds a judgment against plaintiff in the principal amount of $11,140.00, arising out of Andrino Koljevina v.

MOTION FOR AN ORDER ADDING INTEREST TO THE AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE JURY IN THE JUDGMENT; MOTION FOR AN OFFSET OF THE $250,000 SETTLEMENT PLAINTIFFS RECEIVED FROM DEFENDANT LA PACKING AND FOR A DETERMINATION THAT XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE IS THE “PREVAILING PARTY” FOR COSTS MOVING PARTY: (1) Plaintiff Gail Hollander, individually and in her representative capacities.

Based on the foregoing, Defendants motion for an offset is granted. It is so ordered. Dated: December , 2022 Hon. Jon R.

Often ‘the amount of the offset is clouded by injection of noncash consideration into the settlement.’ [Citations.] ‘In a situation where the cash amount of the settlement does not dictate the amount of the offset, the settling parties must include an allocation or a valuation in their agreement.’ [Citation.]” ( Franklin Mint Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1557.) This court on December 6, 2016, granted in part Safyari’s motion for an offset.

Case Number: 19SMCV00057 Hearing Date: December 22, 2022 Dept: R The hearings today are to resolve defendants motion for an offset and a motion to tax costs. Both are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART Government Code section 985 allows public entities to reduce a judgment by way of offset under certain circumstances.

Often ‘the amount of the offset is clouded by injection of noncash consideration into the settlement.’ [Citations.] ‘In a situation where the cash amount of the settlement does not dictate the amount of the offset, the settling parties must include an allocation or a valuation in their agreement.’ [Citation.]” (Franklin Mint Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1557.) This court on December 6, 2016, granted in part Safyari’s motion for an offset.

Now pending before the court are the following two motions filed by the parties: (1) the motion to offset damages, filed by Defendant on August 25, 2023, and (2) the motion for new trial, filed by Plaintiffs on September 18, 2023. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR OFFSET OF DAMAGES Defendant moves the court for an order (1) offsetting the jury award of $23,276.13 by $11,544.46, which represents the insurance proceeds received by Plaintiffs, and (2) entering judgment in the modified amount of $11,732.67.

Conversely, Defendants state that a $70,000 offset, $85,000 minus the $15,000 paid to Shir, should be applied on July 14, 2015, when the vehicles were sold to Amirianfar. Applying the offset at said time would reduce the outstanding balance and consequently the interest accrued. Defendants’ motion is denied. Defendants cite to McConnell v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins.

River Ridge suggests in its papers that the offset claim is valid, so why is there no stipulation to enter a Judgment that reflects the arbitration award and the offset? The arbitration award accrues interest by operation of law, but presumably the McLeod offset claim also does, so arguably no harm, no foul.

As for Plaintiffs request that Defendants costs be offset by $1,976.32 for costs that Defendants counsel agreed to pay, the Court will grant this request. Defendants should have paid the costs to Plaintiff. The Court grants Plaintiffs motion to tax costs. Order 1. Plaintiff Malissa Whites motion to tax costs is granted. 2. Defendants costs claimed for court reporters and transcripts is stricken in the amount of $18,778.28. 3.

On the merits, the Motion asserts that several of the filing costs claimed by Chen should not be recoverable as the related motions were denied. But costs incurred for filing them were still “reasonably necessary” to the litigation. As for the offset claim, Plaintiff asserts that any cost award to Chen should be offset by a $700 sanction previously imposed on Chen which was never paid. Chen states in response that there is no objection to that request. (Opp. p. 7.)

Defendant Ben Safyari’s Motion to Determine Offset is GRANTED. The court grants an offset totaling $281,250, representing $100,000 in attorneys’ fees, $96,250 from the monthly payments, and $85,000 guaranteed value from the $170,000 loan to Klein for his personal benefit. I. IS SAFYARI ENTITLED TO AN OFFSET?

An equitable mortgage and offset are both equitable remedies to be decided by the court and not a jury. Plaintiff's counsel characterizes the offset claim as one based on speculation and guesswork. There are no evidentiary objections filed by either side. The triable issue of fact is not the basis for an equitable mortgage, but what it is worth. River Range's offset claim could exceed the value of the equitable mortgage, which has been valued at $175,000.00. The motion is denied.

Therefore the full settlement by one defendant will offset a judgment against other tortfeasors; no allocation of the settlement is required.But many lawsuits and many settlements do not fit this pattern. In some, the amount of the offset is uncertain because one settlement covers multiple plaintiffs or causes of action with different damages...."

The motion of the plaintiff for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication of issues is DENIED. Procedural Basis for Denial The motion violates Rule 3.1350(b) of the California Rules of Court. On a motion for summary judgment, the Statement must tie each “undisputed material fact” to the particular claim, defense, or issue sought to be adjudicated. (See Truong v. Glasser (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 102, 118.) This motion overlooks that.

Because the Geetings request for an offset for additional fees and costs incurred in the quiet title action is not authorized by the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Geetings must seek to recover such costs under some extra-contractual theory. The Court cannot adjudicate independent tort claims in the context of a motion pursuant to §664.6.

SC124859 Hearing Date April 15, 2021 Defendants Wilshire/Sisca’s Motion to Determine Offset/Remand Issue Plaintiff Harouche sued defendants for fraud, breach of contract and negligence arising out of a construction project. Defendants John Finton and Finton Construction, Inc. (collectively Finton) cross-complained, seeking $608,000 for unpaid invoices.

.: 37-2019-00018398-CU-SL-CTL CASE TITLE: MABVAX THERAPEUTICS HOLDINGS INC VS HONING [E-FILE] CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Securities Litigation EVENT TYPE: Motion Hearing (Civil) CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Leave to Amend, 07/25/2023 Honig and Stetson Defendants' Motion for Leave to Amend Answer is GRANTED. (ROA 2007.) Defendants seek leave of court to amend their answer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint to assert one additional affirmative defense, for offset.

Judgment Debtor Ebrahimi-Adib's motion to correct the interest claimed on the judgment in Case No. 17-33364 and to offset the judgment in Case No. 18-16285 against the judgment in Case No. 17-33364 is granted, but in a different amount than that claimed by Judgment Debtor. The Court directs the court clerk to enter a sister-state judgment in favor of Judgment Creditor and against Judgment Debtor in the amount of $3,884.20 and dated 4/3/18.

Plaintiff has not presented admissible evidence of disputed facts concerning aggravating factors that would make the offset non-trivial. Considering the circumstances of Plaintiff’s fall and the size and nature of the offset, the offset did not pose a substantial risk of injury to a pedestrian using due care. (Huckey, supra, 37 Cal.App.5th at p. 1110.) V. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Moving party to give notice.

Notice Of Motion To Tax Costs Set for hearing on Monday, July 25, 2011, line 11, PLAINTIFF TIMBERLY HUGHES, Motion To Tax Costs. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS IS DENIED. A JURY FEE DEPOSIT IS PROPERLY INCLUDED AS A COST OF A PREVAILING PARTY PER CCP SECTION 1033.5(a)(1). THERE IS NO AUTHORITY THAT FIRST REQUIRES A PARTY TO ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN A REFUND. THERE IS ALSO NO AUTHORITY PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO REQUEST AN OFFSET FOR FEES.

With regard to any offset, the loan that is the subject of the offset was signed by Valentine Rutherford as an individual and he is not a plaintiff so no counterclaim for an offset can be made. 3. Demurrer to answer to complaint: Overrule. The fifth affirmative defense is not uncertain. The fifth affirmative defense is titled "equitable offset and credit-as to all causes of action."

s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement 2)Defendants Dyer Business Associates, LP and Accurate Circuit Engineering, Inc.'s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement DYER BUSINESS ASSOCIATES AND ACCURATE CIRCUIT ENGINEERING, INC.’S MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT Defendants Dyer Business Associates (Dyer) and Accurate Circuit Engineering, Inc.’s (ACE) motion for good faith settlement is GRANTED pursuant to CCP § 877.6.

With respect to Astro tile, plaintiffs agree that an offset of the entire settlement amount of $22,500.00 is appropriate, and the Court agrees. As to Madsen Kneppers, defendant seeks an offset of the entire settlement amount of $225,000.00, while plaintiffs concede an offset of only $19,350.00.

Defendant’s motion for protective order. Motion denied. First, the parties dispute the proper calculation of any mileage offset, and thus dispute whether MP has offered the “full statutory amount” of damages in settlement.

The offset credit is fundamentally not a finding of liability or judgment against Former Trusteesit is simply a component of the Tower Grove offset in Former Trustees favor. Arguments Against Offset Credit Theory Former Trustees offer limited argument against the offset credit theory, principally focusing on the appropriate amount of offset credit rather than the viability of the theory. ( See Response, pp. 25-26.)

Defendant's Motion for Setoff/Offset pursuant to CCP 431.70 is denied. Defendant cites to no authority that would allow the Court to adjudicate the merits of Defendant's claim after entry of judgment. Not only is the request for offset untimely, even if it had been raised pre-judgment, this Court did not have jurisdiction to decide that issue. On Feb. 21, 2014, the Court ordered this matter to arbitration and stayed the instant action.

Case Number: 21STCP01208 Hearing Date: April 19, 2022 Dept: 61 Petitioners James and Vickey Grays Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award is DENIED Respondent Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Co.s Motion to Correct Contractual Arbitration Award is GRANTED. Defendant to provide notice. I.

Although there is no authority as to whether an offset is appropriate against an anti-SLAPP fee award, the Court reluctantly declines to apply an offset given the legislature’s strongly stated policy in enacting Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 to prevent SLAPP suits geared at chilling free speech. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(a).) Bagdasaryan’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART. The Court awards $98,100 in attorneys’ fees in connection with Bagdasaryan’s appeal.

[of] the offset calculation.” (Wood Decl, Ex. 3.) Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 provides that “[a] meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040 [emphasis added].)

For general information regarding Judge DeNoce's rules and procedures for law and motion matters, ex parte matters, telephonic appearances, trial rules and procedures, etc., please visit: http://www.ventura.courts.ca.gov/Courtroom/C43 _____________________________________________ The court's tentative ruling is as follows: As to Defendant DCOR, LLC's Motion for Determination of Workers' Compensation Offset, the court finds that the appropriate workers' compensation offset amount is $19,454.29.

To the extent Defendants seek leave of Court to file a Cross-Complaint to assert an offset against Plaintiffs recovery under Code Civ. Proc. § 431.70, Defendants motion is DENIED as moot as Defendants have already asserted the right to such offset in their Answer.

s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement On December 11, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Ricoh Electronics Inc.’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement for further briefing on the issue of the valuation of the settlement provision assigning Ricoh’s claims for indemnity, contribution, etc. to the District.

Before this New York judgment can be offset against what is now a California judgment, that second New York judgment must also be entered as a sister-state judgment. Judgment Debtor's motion is thus denied without prejudice. Unless and until Judgment Debtor obtains a sister-state judgment based on her assigned judgment, this Court cannot offset that judgment against the judgment entered in this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. This ruling is the order of the Court, filed as of this date.

CONCLUSION Plaintiffs motion to vacate judgment is DENIED.

Calvert et al., Case No. 21SMCV00399 Hearing Date September 30, 2021 Defendants’ Further Briefing re: Motion to Compel Responses to RFPs and Interrogatories Plaintiff brings this is action to enforce a 2020 Canadian judgment against her plastic surgeon defendant Calvert and his corporation, defendant Jay Calvert, M.D, APC. Defendants assert affirmative defenses of offset and equitable recoupment based on plaintiff’s alleged defamation in 2010.

For the foregoing reasons the Motion for Summary Judgment is respectfully denied.

.; BC675962, May 14, 2018 [Tentative] Order RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF MILEAGE DEDUCTION PURSUANT TO THE SONG-BEVERLY WARRANTY ACT Plaintiff JEFFREY GORDON’S Motion for Determination of Mileage Deduction Pursuant to the Song-Beverly Warranty Act is DENIED. The Court further orders that MBUSA is allowed an offset in the amount of $4,975.07.

Instead, they argue that there is an offset. However, Defendant fails to present sufficient evidence regarding the existence of the offset especially as to the amount of the offset. Therefore, TPP has failed to demonstrate a breach of the Settlement Agreement that would give rise to an identifiable offset. Further, the bankruptcy court ruled against TPP in the Adversary Proceeding on May 23, 2018.

It is difficult to imagine why any offset would result from that set of procedural facts. What occurred here is not meaningfully different. Nonetheless, Redig notes it would be more properly considered “in the context of a motion for attorney’s fees…” (Reply 4:22.) If Redig is concerned that the path to a full determination of this issue requires some additional post-judgment proceedings, the Court will entertain that concern.

It is not clear from Khau’s Opposition whether he is arguing that the offset should be in an amount other than the total of the settlements in the amount of $175,000. In the alternative, Khau requests that this court recognize his entitlement to an offset of $175,000. (Opposition at p. 6.) Hallett has stipulated that Khau is entitled to such an offset. (Supp. Kuehl Decl. ¶ 11.) The court finds that Khau is entitled to the $175,000 offset.

Wells Fargo and Chase, and Speedy, have filed opposing briefs contesting Wells Fargo and Chases entitlement to an offset. This is Gilbarcos motion for determination of good faith, and the issue of offset need not be addressed currently. A motion for offset may be brought as a posttrial motion. (See Garcia v. Duro Dyne Corp. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 92, 96 [trial court ruled on a motion to determine offset after jury verdict].)

The courts file does not reflect that Defendants filed such a motion. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS Defendants motion to reduce the compensatory damage award which is offset by the amount Plaintiff obtained in prior settlements, thus reducing the award to $0. The court DENIES Defendants motion to reduce the punitive damages award.

MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT KPC TOWNE CENTRE MCC1701100 INTEREST BY KPC TOWNE CENTRE LLC VS SFM LLC LLC Tentative Ruling: GRANT the motion and award prejudgment interest at 2.5% + prime. Plaintiff shall meet and confer with Defendant and then resubmit a joint interest calculation after the offset of Defendant’s liquidated damages. The amount of damages is certain because it is the monthly payment of rent that was at issue.

The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is therefore GRANTED as to Affirmative Defenses No. 3–4, 7–12, and 13–15, and DENIED as to Affirmative Defenses No. 5–6, 13 (Offset), and 16. Plaintiff to give notice.

The court's tentative ruling is to: Deny Defendants' Motion to Strike First Amended Complaint CCP § 436. Discussion The complaint with the balances claim needs to be put at issue, before any determination on the claimed basis for the offset, and the offset limited to Plaintiff's claims which arose before he filed bankruptcy.

While petitioner contends that the fee judgment was satisfied in full at the time the offset order was entered, and that the motion is therefore untimely, the Court agrees with SBCAG that the offset did not contemplate the fees to which SBCAG was entitled in obtaining the offset order. Consequently, a post-judgment motion for fees of enforcement was not precluded by the entry of the offset order, given that there had been no opportunity for SBCAG to have earlier sought those fees via the required motion.

If petitioner has satisfied the requirements for attachment, determining whether DDS has established the probable validity of its offset claims and, if so, the extent of the offset.”

Any other impacts of the settlement on the litigation or the parties thereto are beyond the scope of the court’s authority in determining that motion, and the order granting the motion is not the appropriate place for those impacts to be determined. Should judgment be entered against QDC’s joint tortfeasors at trial, they will be entitled to an offset, by the legal effect of Section 877(a).

Defendants Gokhan Kisacikoglu and Aylin Kisacikoglu’s motion to continue the hearing on Plaintiff Beniya Offset Corp.’s Motion to Enter Judgment is denied. Defendants fail to identify any good cause to continue the instant motion. Judgment is entered in Plaintiff’s favor against Defendants Gokhan Kisacikoglu and Aylin Kisacikoglu in the principal amount of $18,535.00 (stipulated judgment of $18,535.00 less credit for $0 paid). Moving party to give notice.

Plaintiff opposes but provides no substantive argument, but notes its pending motion to set aside default in the unlawful detainer matter. Plaintiff provides no authority or argument that its pending motion means defendant should not be allowed to present an offset defense. GRANTED. DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR BY MICROSOFT OFFICE TEAMS.

If Plaintiff's economic damages were not subject to an offset, the City would be liable for the full damages of $174,992.72 and entitled to seek indemnity from Ms. Owens for 30% of that amount, or $52,497.82. Here, however, the economic damages are subject to a Witt v. Jackson offset in the amount of $52,497.82. The basis for this offset is the imputation of Ms. Owen's liability to the employer. Thus, the offset must be applied to Ms. Owen's share of liability. As the offset precisely matches Ms.

Likewise, whether or not there would be entitlement to an offset (or whether Defendant would be estopped from seeking an offset), the operative complaint still seeks damages which would still require consideration of evidentiary and factual issues which overlap with the other cases. Therefore, it appears likely that this case could lead to inconsistent factual determinations when compared with one or both of the Los Angeles actions. For these reasons, the motion for a stay is granted.

Thus, resolution of the issue of the amount of any offset is not required on a motion for a good faith determination. However, based on the information before the court on this motion it appears Church of the Nazarene will be entitled, at a minimum, to an offset in an amount equal to the amount at the low end of the range provided by PLNU. Based on the evidence presented, the court finds the settlement to be in good faith.

Mileage Offset Land Rover argues that, under CCP §1793.2(d)(2)(C), it is entitled to a mileage offset of $9,280.11 from the sticker price of $110,599.19 paid by McNelley.

Motion by Defendant/Cross-complainant WDI International, Inc. for Leave to File First Amended Answer: Defendant WDI International, Inc.’s motion for leave to file a first amended answer to add the affirmative defense of offset is GRANTED. C.C.P. § 473(a)(1) and Husley v. Koehler (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1150, 1159.

The language also appears in the Successors and Assigns section, but for the avoidance of doubt, Blackpointe has stated in writing, both in the motion ( See Motion at 11:4-25) and in the reply ( See Reply at 3:18-4:21), that the agreement is not intended to limit the Remaining Defendants right to offset, should a jury or the Court find offset appropriate after trial. Second, the allocation is clear.

Motion for summary judgment is denied as to plaintiff Max Yang.

Defendant San Diego Gas & Electric Company's motion for offset is granted. As against SDG&E the complaint alleges four causes of action for violation of Labor Code § 1050, remedies under Labor Code § 2699, interference with contractual relations and interference with prospective economic advantage. The complaint alleges one cause of action against settling Defendant NV5, Inc. – breach of contract. Plaintiff dismissed the Labor Code § 2699 cause of action prior to SDG&E's answer.

The Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement by defendants Lucas General Contracting Corp. and Thomas H. Weeda and intervenor Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. is granted and the settlement is approved. The settlement was made in good faith within the meaning of CCP §877.6 because it satisfied the weight of the factors set forth in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 488, 499.

Defendants did not challenge these costs in a motion to strike or tax costs or by way of their opposition to this motion. The statutory costs pursuant to C.C.P. section 1033.5 total $6,296.90. Plaintiff is also awarded $2,327.73 in costs pursuant to Civil Code section 1717 and the parties' lease at section 24.13, which are also not challenged by Defendants in opposition. The grand cost total is $8,724.63. Offset Pursuant to the lease, Plaintiff is also entitled to an offset. (Lease, at § 13.3.)

Thus, AWPA is not responsible for any damages KDF may recover on its cross-complaint, and KDF may not offset any judgment it obtains against Harper to reduce its liability to AWPA, who under the law of this case is not Harper’s alter ego, regardless of any recent appellate opinions on the subject of reverse alter ego liability. AWPA’s request in its opposition for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs under CCP §685.040 for opposing this motion is denied without prejudice as procedurally improper.

See Motion, Dec. of T. Bonder, ¶15.

Judge Beckloff also noted that Plaintiffs reduction for actual rent received under the Scotch & Soda lease was proper as was the total estimated offset of $148,624.56. (Writ of Attachment granted 01/14/22.) Judge Beckloff noted that Bailey had failed to demonstrate that Centurys calculations of the offset amount were incorrect. In making similar arguments in this Motion, Bailey has again failed to demonstrate how Centurys estimated damages are incorrect.

Since it is highly unlikely that the litigants would write a check for the amount of the offset, the award of the appraisers will include both a gross value, a 50% share of the adjusted net assets of RR Crane, and a net value that incorporates the application of the offset to the 50% share of Brian Crane which should be part of the award. (Motion, pp. 41-42.)

Payments to entity as “offset” to the civil penalty.

Here, Respondent had not previously sought to offset the amount of the judgment in favor of Robert Gentino (Respondent’s Motion filed 11/27/19, at p. 4), and it would not be appropriate to do so. Accordingly, Respondent’s motion to amend judgment offsetting statutory judgment lien (CCP § 708.470) is GRANTED. Respondent’s lien in the amount of $322,066.77 is offset against the amount of the judgment in favor of Petitioner in this case, $314,583.53.

Notice Of Motion And Motion For Determination Of Good Faith Settlement SET FOR HEARING ON TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2016, LINE 3 DEFENDANT RANGER PIPELINES' Motion For Determination Of Good Faith Settlement Denied. Ranger Pipelines has not met its burden of showing that the settlement amount is in the ballpark of the settling parties' proportionate liability. The Regents' claimed damages are over $30,000,000 and possibly as high as $46,000,000 based on Mr. Bade's testimony.

The motion is granted, and defendants are awarded $5,000 in fees; the remainder is taxed. Aimco argues the fee award should be offset because defendants have not paid $4,470 in attorneys fees the court awarded to plaintiff on March 29, 2023 after prevailing on an anti-SLAPP motion against defendants cross-complaint. Aimcos counsel Jina Yoon states the anti-SLAPP award is still outstanding, and defendants provide no evidence to the contrary.

Plaintiff opposes the motion. After addressing the concerns raised by Defendant and applying the relevant legal standards, the Court concludes that no stay should be issued and denies Defendants motion in its entirety.

Wright opposes the motion. She first notes that Spalding does not cite any legal authority that would permit the Court to offset Spalding's judgment as he requests. Wright further argues that Spalding's motion must fail because he does not provide evidence that Spalding had insurance with CSAA that provided for medical payments, and that CSAA actually paid some of Wright's medical bills, and that no such evidence was presented at trial.

The KDF Parties’ Renewed Motion for an Order Staying the Execution of the Amended Judgment by AWPA Against the KDF Parties is denied. This ruling is without prejudice to KDF attempting to enforce any Judgment against Harper from his interest in AWPA, or asserting a claim for fraudulent conveyance or conversion. KDF’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted as to #1-7 but is denied as to #8-21 because trial exhibits are not court records under Evidence Code §452(d).

Intervenors, the only defendants remaining in the Lead Action, contend they have an interest in this action because they have a right to offset in the Lead Action for the funds disbursed, and therefore they have a vested interest in ensuring the funds are timely disbursed. (Motion at pp. 5-6.) The property was owned by the Winonia Strickland Myles Living Trust, but Myless December 18, 2020 motion for disbursement was not brought as trustee.

. : 19STCV45540 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT CITY OF GLENDALE’ S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Dept . 27 1:30 p.m. June 9, 20 2 1 I. INTRODUCTION On December 17, 2019, Plaintiff Kathleen Davila filed this action against Defendant City of Glendale arising from a March 25, 2019 trip and fall on a sidewalk offset . Defendant moves for summary judgment on the grounds that the sidewalk offset is a trivial defect. II.

MOTION FOR SET ASIDE/VACATE JUDGMENT Unlawful Detainer Law and Motion Calendar for Thursday, Sept. 27, 2012. Line 6 - DEFENDANT PHILIP MYERS' MOTION FOR SET ASIDE/VACATE JUDGMENT. Hearing required. DBI abatement and offset. =(501/REQ)

If the offset issue had been left unresolved in such a manner, the court would be persuaded that it is "necessary and appropriate" to resolve the offset issue for entry of judgment.

Kimes objects, on the ground that the settlement must provide him with an offset or credit against any judgment or surcharge that might be entered against him in the action filed by Ms. Cohune. Mr. Kimes claims that, based on current market value, the residence likely would sell for $132,395 more than under the prior agreement, and he should have that potential offset against any surcharge.

TENTATIVE RULING: The Motion of Plaintiff Joseph Mariano for an Offset is DENIED. (Declaration of Charles Moore, Ex. 4)

It is unclear whether the settlement in the related case would or should provide an offset to any money judgment against non-settling Defendants in the instant case. The Court needs further briefing on this issue before deciding good faith. Given the parties interest in resolving this issue promptly, the Court will allow only a brief continuance. The motion is CONTINUED to October 10, 2022 at 9:00 am.

Motion to Strike Memorandum of Costs RIC1905962 SACKS vs MCCOY by DARREN VAUGHT Tentative Ruling: Continued to 5/6/22 at 8:30 a.m., Department 5 to be heard with the Motion for Offset.

Tentative Ruling: (1) To deny Plaintiff’s motion to tax costs; (2) To grant, in part, Defendants’ motion to strike costs; the Court awards Plaintiff $436.00 in costs offset as to Defendant’s recovery of $156,901.74 in costs.

Instead, Zal argues that it already paid Diab $16,000, and that the arbitrators award should have been offset by that amount. There is no evidence that a formal request for offset was made to the arbitrator while the arbitration was pending. The only evidence is that this request was expressly made only after the arbitration had concluded, and that it was couched as a correction of the award, rather than as a submission of a new or different issue.

“Read together, 11 United States Code sections 524 and 553 make it clear that offset cannot be used to revive in a state court proceeding a debt already discharged in bankruptcy. [Citation.] We therefore conclude the trial court erred in ordering the offset and in granting husband’s motion to recall and quash the execution and to vacate the levy of execution.” (Id. at p. 1224.)

Calculation of statutory mileage offset deduction Defendants § 998 Offer of Compromise provides that the offer is conditioned upon the agreement of both parties to subsequently deduct a statutory mileage offset in an amount to be determined by the Court from the reimbursement amount of $31,658.47 as listed in Item 1. (Zolonz Decl., Ex. A ¶ 3 [12].) The parties dispute the proper method of calculating the mileage offset for a leased vehicle. Civ.

The non-settling Defendants will be entitled to an offset as a result of the settlement. The motion to contest good faith settlement is DENIED. The application for good faith settlement is GRANTED.

Superior Court of California BENIYA OFFSET CORP. Plaintiff, v. GOKHAN KISACIKOGLU, et al. Defendants. Case No.: 19STCV12146 Hearing Date: None [TENTATIVE] order RE: Plaintiff’s DECLARATION TO ENTER JUDGMENT PER STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BACKGROUND On April 9, 2019, Plaintiff Beniya Offset Corp. (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Defendants Gokhan Kisacikoglu, Aylin Kisacikoglu, and Does 1 to 5 for unlawful detainer.

While the court does not resolve the issue of defendants’ entitlement to offset for the purposes of this motion, defendants adequately demonstrate the potential for offset based on the claims pleaded in this action, and sufficiently establish good cause for production. Plaintiff generally asserts the confidentiality of the subject settlement agreement.