Related Contentin Los Angeles County
Case
JERRY STORM, ET AL. VS BELOIT-IOWA, LTD., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.
Aug 19, 2024 |Patrick Timothy Meyers |Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) (General Jurisdiction) |Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) (General Jurisdiction) |24STCV21098
Case
MURAL MEDIA, LLC 401K PLAN VS LINDA J. MAULTSBY, ET AL.
Aug 20, 2024 |Lia R. Martin |Unlawful Detainer/Residential (not drugs or wrongful eviction) (General Jurisdiction) |Unlawful Detainer/Residential (not drugs or wrongful eviction) (General Jurisdiction) |24STCV21169
Case
LCG - BELGRAVE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS QX LOGISTIX LLC
Aug 19, 2024 |Olivia Rosales |Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) (General Jurisdiction) |Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) (General Jurisdiction) |24NWCV02634
Case
SJO INVESTMENTS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS SILVESTER BARRAZA IN HIS CAPACITY AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE DEOGRACIA MEDIA REVOCABLE TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2018, ET AL
Aug 16, 2024 |Barbara Marie Scheper |Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure) (General Jurisdiction) |Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure) (General Jurisdiction) |24STCV20843
Case
SANTOS GARCIA QUEZADA, ET AL. VS RICHARD JOSEPH JR. GERALDS AKA RASHEED LATEEF, ET AL.
Aug 23, 2024 |Frank M. Tavelman |Unlawful Detainer/Residential (not drugs or wrongful eviction) (General Jurisdiction) |Unlawful Detainer/Residential (not drugs or wrongful eviction) (General Jurisdiction) |24NNCV03762
Case
WILLIAM RAND DUSING, ET AL. VS JAMES RICHARD PARKS, ET AL.
Aug 20, 2024 |Tricia J. Taylor |Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure) (General Jurisdiction) |Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure) (General Jurisdiction) |24CHCV02985
Case
PETER TRIFUNOVICH VS MANDEEP SIDHU, ET AL.
Aug 20, 2024 |Robert Broadbelt III |Quiet Title (General Jurisdiction) |Quiet Title (General Jurisdiction) |24STCV21251
Case
GRANT KIP VS LASZLO NEMETH
Aug 19, 2024 |Christopher K. Lui |Unlawful Detainer - Post-Foreclosure (General Jurisdiction) |Unlawful Detainer - Post-Foreclosure (General Jurisdiction) |24STCV20975
Case
CONNIE C. QUARRE, TRUSTEE OF THE CONNIE C. QUARRE TRUST AND THE CONSTANCE C. QUARRE TRUST VS JDX AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
Aug 22, 2024 |Olivia Rosales |Unlawful Detainer/Commercial (not drugs or wrongful eviction) (General Jurisdiction) |Unlawful Detainer/Commercial (not drugs or wrongful eviction) (General Jurisdiction) |24NWCV02718
Ruling
FELIPE ROSALES, ET AL. VS ALAN LI, ET AL.
Aug 21, 2024 |24PSCV01053
Case Number: 24PSCV01053 Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 Dept: O Tentative Ruling (1) PETITION TO APPROVE MINORS COMPROMISE OF PENDING re: JAZMINE ROSALES is GRANTED. (2) PETITION TO APPROVE MINORS COMPROMISE OF PENDING re: JENESIS ROSALES is GRANTED. (3) PETITION TO APPROVE MINORS COMPROMISE OF PENDING re: JONATHAN ROSALES is GRANTED. Discussion This is a habitability case. During their tenancy, Plaintiffs experienced mold exposure, excessive leaks, flooding, no heater, no air conditioning, electrical wiring lighting issues, general dilapidation of the Subject Property, faulty plumbing, retaliation, constructive eviction, and harassment. Plaintiffs did not suffer physical injuries that require ongoing medical attention but experienced mental distress and interferences with their quiet use and enjoyment of the Property. On March 29, 2024, Plaintiffs Felipe Rosales and Yeny Rosales (parents) and Jonathan Rosales, Jenesis Rosales, and Jazmine Rosales (minor plaintiffs) filed suit against Defendants Alan Li, Ideal Property and Realty, Inc. for the following 13 causes of action: 1. Contractual And Tortious Breach Of The Implied Warranty Of Habitability 2. Constructive Eviction; 3. Tenant Harassment 4. Statutory Breach Of The Warranty Of Habitability 5. Retaliation 6. Wrongful Retention Of Security Deposit 7. Financial Abuse Of Elders And Disabled Persons 8. FEHA 9. Negligence; 10. Negligent Misrepresentation 11. Violation Of Civil Code § 1159 (Forcible Entry 12. Rstpo § 8.52.130 - Retaliatory Eviction And Antiharassment 13. Unfair, Unlawful, And Deceptive Business Act Or Practice, Bus. &Prof. Code §17200 Et Seq. On July 11, 2024, a notice of settlement was filed. On July 17, 2024, Felipe was named as the guardian ad litem for minor plaintiffs. On July 18, 2024, the instant petitions were filed. Discussion On June 10, 2024, the parties/claimants have agreed to settle the lawsuit/claims for a gross sum of $275,000 with $260,000.00 allocated to the two adult plaintiffs and $15,000.00 allocated to the minor plaintiffs. Of the sum, the attorney fees of 40% (for parents) and 35% (for minors) will amount to $109,250.00. Here, considering Plaintiffs Counsels regular communication with the property managers of the subject property to ensure that repairs were swiftly made and contact and a free exchange of informal discovery with the goal of both parties to work towards a settlement, the court determines the fees reasonable. Therefore, absent defects, the court grants all three petitions. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the petitions are granted.
Ruling
TRADEWINDS BLUE LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS JACKIE MENDEZ
Aug 19, 2024 |23VECV04506
Case Number: 23VECV04506 Hearing Date: August 19, 2024 Dept: W TRADEWINDS BLUE LLC v. JACKIE MENDEZ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION/RENEWAL OF PRIOR MOTION Date of Hearing: August 19, 2024 Judgment Ent: (1/2/24) Department: W Case No.: 23VECV04506 Moving Party: Jackie Mendez Opposing Party: No Opposition; no service on Defendant This is an unlawful detainer action. Judgment of possession was entered in favor of Tradewinds Blue, LLC on January 2, 2024. On March 29, 2024, defendant brought an ex parte application to vacate the judgment pursuant to FRCP Rule 60(B)(4). That application was denied on the same date by the court. On July 5, 2024, defendant filed a document entitled Notice of Renewal of Motion and Motion for Relief from Judgment Not Void on its face. The motion indicates that it is brought pursuant to C.C.P. Section 1008 and 473(d). There is no proof of service to indicate that this motion was actually served on plaintiff. No opposition has been filed. The court denies the motion on the following grounds: 1) It was not properly served on the plaintiff; 2) even if properly served, it is an improper request for reconsideration, as it does not present any new evidence, facts or law that would support reconsideration of the courts earlier decision. The vague assertion that Judicial Assistant Reana Redmond has engaged in unspecified unethical conduct is not an adequate basis for the court to reconsider its prior ruling. not supported by a declaration by the moving party. The motion for reconsideration/renewal of the prior motion is denied.
Ruling
KAVEH KEVIN JEBELI VS JEWISH EDUCATIONAL MOVEMENT, ET AL.
Aug 23, 2024 |23SMCV03296
Case Number: 23SMCV03296 Hearing Date: August 23, 2024 Dept: 205 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles West District Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 KAVEH KEVIN JEBELI, Plaintiff, v. JEWISH EDUCATIONAL MOVEMENT, et al., Defendants. Case No.: 23SMCV03296 Hearing Date: July 23, 2024 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS MOTION TO VACATE AND SET ASIDE DEFAULT BACKGROUND Plaintiff Kaveh Kevin Jebeli entered into a contract with Defendants Jewish Educational Movement (JEM) and Hertzel Illulian (Illulian) for warehouse/storage space. Jebeli used the space to store over $1,396,136 worth of computer and computer-related equipment, inventory, fixtures and tools he used for his business. Jebeli was also storing boxes of mens clothing for his father-in-law valued at approximately $100,000. Defendants rented the space next to Jebelis to a CBD oil manufacturer who used the premises to manufacture CBD oil, a highly flammable substance. The unit in fact caught fire, burning all of Jebelis belongings. Jebeli was only able to recover $380,000 from his insurance. On July 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants. The Complaint alleges claims for gross negligence, breach of written contract and declaratory relief. Jebeli claims damages in the amount of $1,122,136. Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing Defendant Hertzel Illulian was personally served on October 25, 2023 and Defendant JEM was substitute served on November 3, 2023. This hearing is on Defendants motion to set aside entry of default. Defendants argue (1) the default as to JEM was entered prematurely by the Clerk on December 6, 2023 in violation of Code Civ. Proc. §415.20, which renders the default void, (2) the defaults are void because Plaintiff failed to serve Defendants with a Statement of Damages prior to the entry of Default in violation of Code Civ. Proc. §425.11(c); (3) the defaults were the result of Defendants mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect in believing that they were improperly served, and (4) the defaults were the result of defense counsels mistake, inadvertence and excusable neglect in advising Defendants that service was not lawful. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §473(b), both discretionary and mandatory relief are available to parties when a case is dismissed. Discretionary relief is available under the statute as the court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 473(b).) Alternatively, mandatory relief is available when accompanied by an attorneys sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. (Id.) The purpose of the attorney affidavit provision is to relieve the innocent client of the burden of the attorneys fault, to impose the burden on the erring attorney, and to avoid precipitating more litigation in the form of malpractice suits. (Hu v. Fang (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 61, 64.) Mandatory relief is available even if counsels neglect was inexcusable. (SJP Limited Partnership v. City of Los Angeles (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 511, 516517.) An application for discretionary or mandatory relief must be made no more than six months after entry of the judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding from which relief is sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b); English v. IKON Business Solutions (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 143.) [W]hen relief under section 473¿is¿available, there is a strong¿public¿policy¿in¿favor¿of granting relief and allowing the requesting party his or her day in court[.] (Rappleyea v. Campbell¿(1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975, 981-82.) Any doubt in applying section 473, subdivision (b), must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief. (Bonzer v. City of Huntington Park (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th 1474,¿1477-1478.) Where relief is promptly sought and no prejudice would be done to the opposing party, only very slight evidence is required to justify the setting¿aside of a default. For this reason, orders denying relief under section 473 are carefully scrutinized on appeal. (¿Rappleyea v. Campbell¿(1994) 8 Cal..4th 975, 980;¿Elston v. City of Turlock¿(1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233.) DISCUSSION The Court concludes that default should be vacated because of defense counsels declaration of fault. Defense counsel attests that to the extent service was proper, he was mistaken in advising Defendants that service was unlawful and they did not need to respond to the Complaint. (Corby Decl. ¶¶ 9, 12.) Relief is mandatory when a motion to vacate is accompanied by an attorney-at-fault declaration. (SJP Limited Partnership, 136 Cal.App.4th at 516517.) Standard Microsystems Corp. v. Winbond Electronics Corp., 179 Cal. App. 4th 868, 896-97, 900 (2009) is instructive. There, copies of the summons and complaint were sent by registered mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the overseas corporations respective headquarters. Their attorney advised them that the service by mail had not been effective to confer jurisdiction and that they were not required to answer the complaint. Their attorney did not advise them of the possibility of moving to quash service. Defaults were taken against the overseas corporations, and the trial court denied their motions to set aside the default and quash service of process on the ground of defective service. The overseas corporations then retained new counsel and sought mandatory relief under¿Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b), supported by a declaration of fault from their previous attorney. The court concluded: So far as this record shows, defendants attorney in fact believed, quite mistakenly, that his clients were not obligated to respond to the complaint as served on them, and incurred no great risks in failing to do so. He was grossly mistaken on both points. The resulting default and default judgment were unquestionably the product of attorney fault, and defendants were entitled to relief under the mandatory provisions of section 473(a). Here, similar to the defendant in Standard Microsytems, Defendants were advised by counsel that service was improper, and Defendants did not have a legal obligation to file a responsive pleading. To the extent counsel was mistaken, his mistake mandates relief from the entry of default. Given this ruling, the Court declines to consider other arguments raised by Defendants for vacating default. The Court next considers Plaintiffs request that the granting of Defendants motion be conditioned on the imposition of sanctions on Plaintiffs counsel, Travis Corby. Pursuant to 473(b), the court shall, whenever relief is granted based on an attorneys affidavit of fault, direct the attorney to pay reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs to opposing counsel or parties. Plaintiff attests he has incurred fees and costs in the estimated amount of $25,000 to serve Defendants (15 attempts each), oppose the prior motion to set aside default, oppose the motion for reconsideration, and oppose the instant motion and appear for same. Plaintiffs declaration does not specify the hourly rate of counsel or the amount of hours expended for each task, and accordingly, the Court cannot conclude whether either is reasonable. The Court denies Plaintiffs request for sanctions without prejudice to Plaintiff renewing the request with a more specific declaration. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants motion to vacate and set aside default. Defendants are ordered to file their answer within five days from the date of this order. A case management conference is set on October 1, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 23, 2024 ___________________________ Edward B. Moreton, Jr. Judge of the Superior Court
Ruling
LAURA ORIHUELA, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES GROWTH GROUP LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
Aug 22, 2024 |23STCV12404
Case Number: 23STCV12404 Hearing Date: August 22, 2024 Dept: 68 Dept. 68 Date: 8-22-24 Case #23STCV12404 MINORS COMPROMISE PETITIONER: Laura Orihuela MINORS NAME: David Anthony Orihuela Rosas RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Defendant, Los Angeles Growth Group LLC, et al. RELIEF REQUESTED Minors Compromise SUMMARY OF ACTION Plaintiffs Laura Orihuela, et al. were residents 325 Witmer St., Unit 11. The property is owned and/or managed by defendants Los Angeles Growth Group LLC, et al. Plaintiffs allege substandard conditions in the unit. On June 1, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a complaint for Breach of Warranty of Habitability, Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, Negligence, and Breach of Contract. RULING: Granted. Plaintiffs settled with defendants Los Angeles Growth Group LLC, et al. for $80,000 described as $35,000 to the adult plaintiffs and $5,000 to the minors. The complaint lists two (2) adult plaintiffs, and three (3) minors, which creates a $5,000 disparity in the total. Notwithstanding, for 14 year old David Anthony Orihuela Rosas, the petition indicates a total settlement of $5,000, with $1,250 in attorney fees, and $737.14 in costs (an amount representing a one-fifth split amongst the Plaintiffs). Total net recovery of $3,012.86. The disparity in the total in no way appears to impact the settlement for the minor. The petition is granted. The $3,012.86 payment to be provided to parent, Laura Orihuela. (Probate Code § 3401, 3611, subd. (a).) Trial on calendar for October 7, 2024. Moving party to provide notice.
Ruling
ALEX YUTKOVSKY VS NOHO 10 LLC, ET AL.
Aug 23, 2024 |23STCV00233
Case Number: 23STCV00233 Hearing Date: August 23, 2024 Dept: 40 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 40 ALEX YUTKOVSKY, Trustee of the Alex Yutkovsky Living Trust, Plaintiff, v. NOHO 10 LLC, a California limited liability company; ARTUR NESTERENKO, an individual; GERMAN NESTERENKO, an individual; GERMAN SIMAKOVSKI, aka Greg Simakovski, an individual; BRONZETREE TERRACES, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; and DOES 3 through 50, inclusive. Defendants. Case No.: 23STCV00233 Hearing Date: August 23, 2024 Trial Date: January 14, 2025 [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Motion for Order that Requests for Admissions Served on Defendant German Simakovski be Deemed Admitted and Request for Monetary Sanctions [CCP § 2033.280(b)(c)]. Motion to Compel Discovery Responses of Defendant German Simakovski (Requests for Production of Documents, Set One) and Request for Sanctions [CCP § 2031.300(c)]. Background Plaintiff Alex Yutkovsky, Trustee of the Alex Yutkovsky Living Trust, (Yutkovsky) sues Defendants NOHO 10 LLC (NOHO), Artur Nesterenko, German Nesterenko, German Simakovski a/k/a Greg Simakovski (Simakovski), Bronzetree Terraces, LLC (Bronzetree), and Does 3 through 50 (collectively Defendants) pursuant to a July 21, 2023 Second Amended Complaint (SAC) alleging claims of (1) Fraud, (2) Theft by False Pretenses, (3) Aiding and Abetting Theft by False Pretenses, (4) Breach of Written Contract, (5) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (6) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, (7) Cancellation of Instrument, and (8) Declaratory Relief. The claims are based on allegations that Plaintiff Yutkovsky is a victim of a complex fraud carried out by Defendants German and Artur Nesterenko, managers of NOHO. According to the allegations, with assistance from the other Defendants, including Simakovski, Yutkovsky was persuaded to loan $1,056,000 to the Defendants. This loan was secured by a deed of trust on real property, with Yutkovsky's security interest being second in priority among secured lenders. The Defendants are accused of forging documents to fraudulently record a Substitution of Trustee and Full Reconveyance (the Reconveyance) of Yutkovskys deed of trust. This action extinguished Yutkovskys lien, allowing the Defendants to abscond with Yutkovskys funds. The original Complaint in this action was filed on January 5, 2023. On February 3, 2023, Yutkovsky filed his First Amended Complaint. On July 21, 2023 Yutkovsky filed the Second Amended Complaint. Defendant Greg Simakovski answered the SAC on September 1, 2023. On March 18, 2024, Yutkovsky served Simakovski with Requests for Admission (Set One), Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Special Interrogatories (Set One). On May 6, 2024, Yutkovsky filed a motion to deem the requests for admissions served on Simakovski be admitted and for monetary sanctions of $3,912.95. The hearing was originally scheduled for July 26, 2024. The Court continued the hearing to August 23, 2024 (Min. Order at p.1, July 17, 2024.) On June 11, 2024, Yutkovsky filed three motions to compel the discovery responses of Simakovski for the requests for production of documents, form interrogatories and special interrogatories. On August 20, 2024, Simakovski in propria persona opposed the motion to deem the requests for admissions admitted, explaining that he did not respond to the discovery requests on time because his attorney did not communicate the requests to him. (Opp. at p. 2, lines 10-13; Decl. at p. 5, lines 4-7.) As a result, he did not receive actual notice of the requests until after the deadline had passed. (Opp. at p. 2, lines 14-15.) Simakovski has since submitted responses to all the discovery requests in question. (Opp. at p. 2, 20-24, Exh 3.) The filed does not reflect any Reply as of the date of this ruling. Motions Timeliness There is no deadline for making a motion to deem requests (RFA) admitted, but the discovering party should make the motion as soon as possible after the deadline to respond and before the cutoff for discovery motions. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020 [cutoff for discovery motions], 2033.280 [no deadline provided for motion to deem RFAs admitted]; Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1584 [no time specified for bringing motion to deem RFAs admitted], disapproved on other grounds, Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 974.) A motion to compel an initial response should be filed and served at least 16 court days before the date set for the hearing plus any additional days for method of service. (Code Civ. Proc., 1005, subd. (b).) Legal Standard - Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Alleged Admitted Any party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties. CCP § 2033.010. Within 30 days after service of requests for admission, the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared . . . . CCP § 2033.250(a). If a party to whom request for admissions are served fails to provide a timely response, the party to whom the request was directed waives any objections, including based on privilege or the work product doctrine. CCP § 2033.280(a). The requesting party can move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed admitted, as well as for monetary sanctions. CCP § 2033.280(b). The court shall issue this order unless the party to whom the request was made serves a response in substantial compliance prior to the hearing on the motion. CCP § 2033.280(c). No meet and confer is required on a motion to deem RFAs admitted. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280 [No meet and confer mentioned for motion to deem RFAs admitted]; cf. Code Civ. Proc., 2033.290, subd. (b)(1) [meet and confer required to compel further RFA responses]; People v. Trevino (2001) 26 Cal.4th 237, 242 [When the Legislature uses materially different language in statutory provisions addressing the same subject or related subjects, the normal inference is that the Legislature intended a difference in meaning].) A separate statement is not required when no response has been provided to requests for admission. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (b).) Discussion Here, Yutkovsky served Simakovski with Requests for Admission (Set One), Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Special Interrogatories (Set One) on March 18, 2024. Responses were due by April 19, 2024. CCP §§ 1013(a), 2033.250(a). Yutkovsky received no responses from Simakovski and subsequently filed this motion to deem the matters admitted. On May 28, 2024, after the motion was filed but prior to the hearing on the motion, Simakovski submitted his responses to the Requests for Admission (Set One) (Opp. Ex. 3). He also submitted his responses to the Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) on July 14, 2024 (Opp. Ex. 3); He submitted his responses to the Form Interrogatories (Set One) on June 23, 2024 (Opp. Ex. 3) [The Proof of Service for the Form Interrogatories mistakenly refers to Special Interrogatories]; and he submitted his responses to the Special Interrogatories (Set One) on August 20, 2024. (Opp. Ex. 3). Simakovski has now served responses in substantial compliance and without objections prior to the hearing on the motion. The Court also finds that his failure to timely serve the responses was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Accordingly, the Court cannot deem RFAs Set One as admitted. CCP § 2033.280(c); St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776 (a responding partys service, prior to the hearing on the deemed admitted motion, of substantially compliant responses, will defeat a propounding partys attempt under section 2033.280 to have the RFAs deemed admitted). Accordingly, Plaintiff Yutkovskys request to deem as admitted RFAs Set One is DENIED AS MOOT. Sanctions Sanctions are mandatory against the party, the attorney, or both whose failure to serve a timely response to the request necessitated the motion to deem request for admissions as admitted. CCP § 2033.280(c); see also Cal. Rules of Court R. 3.1348(a) (the court can award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party seeking to compel discovery even though no opposition was filed, the opposition was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed). Yutkovsky requests sanctions in the total amount of $3,912.95 based upon counsels rate of $450.00/hour for (1) 4.0 hours to prepare the motion; (2) 3 hours to review any opposition and prepare a reply; (3) $61.65 reservation fee; (4) $26.30 in filing fees; and (4) $675.00 appearance fee. (Cohen Decl. ¶ 6.) Here, sanctions are mandatory because Simakovski failed to provide a timely response to a request for admissions. (CCP § 2033.280(c).) There is no exception if the partys conduct was substantially justified or if the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. Yutkovsky requests 3 hours to review any opposition and file a reply. Since Yutkovsky did not file a reply, the Court finds that 1 hour is an appropriate amount of time for item (2) above. Accordingly, Plaintiff Yutkovskys request for sanctions against Defendant Simakovski is GRANTED in the reduced total amount of $3,012.95. Sanctions are payable within 30 days of service of this order. Legal Standard - Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (Requests for Production of Documents) A motion to compel an initial response can be made on the ground that a party did not serve a timely response to interrogatories or a demand to produce. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (a) [demand to produce]; see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404 (Sinaiko).) Failing to respond to a demand within the time permitted waives all objections to the demandincluding claims of privilege and work product. (CCP § 2031.300(a)) However, the court may grant relief from such waiver. To obtain such relief, the party to whom the demand is directed must have: (1) belatedly served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280; and (2) filed a noticed motion supported by declarations showing that the delay resulted from mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect. (CCP § 2031.300(a)) Discussion Here, Yutkovsky served Simakovski with Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) on March 18, 2024. Responses were due by April 19, 2024. CCP §§ 1013(a), 2033.250(a). Yutkovsky received no responses from Simakovski and subsequently filed this motion to compel the production of documents. On July 14, 2024, prior to the hearing on the motion, Simakovski submitted his responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) (Opp. to Mot. to Deem RFAs Admitted, Ex. 3). Yutkovsky argues that his response was not timely because his attorney did not communicate the requests to him and he did not receive actual notice of the requests until after the deadline had passed. (Opp. to Mot. to Deem RFAs Admitted, at p. 2, lines 14-15.) Although Simakovski did not timely file his response to the request for production of documents, he has subsequently submitted his responses and explained that the delay was due to an error by his attorney. Therefore, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 subdivision (a), he has belatedly served a response and shown that the delay resulted from mistake or inadvertence. Thus, the Court can grant relief from the waiver of all objections to the demand. Accordingly, Plaintiff Yutkovskys motion to compel discovery responses for production of documents is DENIED AS MOOT and the Court grants Defendant Simakovski relief from waiver. Sanctions If a motion to compel is granted and the moving party properly asks for monetary sanctions, the court shall order the party to whom the discovery was directed to pay the propounding party's reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, in enforcing discovery unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circ*mstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (CCP § 2023.030(a).) Even after a party provides discovery responses, a party may keep its motion on calendar and the court has authority to grant such sanctions, even if it denies the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part. (Sinaiko, supra, at p. 409.) Yutkovsky requests sanctions in the total amount of $3,237.95 based upon counsels rate of $450.00/hour for (1) 3.0 hours to prepare the motion; (2) 2.5 hours to review any opposition and prepare a reply; (3) $61.65 reservation fee; (4) $26.30 in filing fees; and (4) $675.00 appearance fee. (Cohen Decl. ¶ 16.) Yutkovsky requests 3 hours to review any opposition and file a reply. However, there was no opposition, and thus no need to reply. Accordingly, Plaintiff Yutkovskys request for sanctions against Defendant Simakovski is GRANTED in the reduced total amount of $2,112.95. Sanctions are payable within 30 days of service of this order. Conclusion The Motion for Order that Requests for Admissions be Deemed Admitted is DENIED AS MOOT. The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $3,012.95. The Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (Requests for Production of Documents) is DENIED AS MOOT. The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $2,112.95.
Ruling
WVISTANO DANIEL PEREZ VS FCI LENDER SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
Aug 20, 2024 |23CHCV01341
Case Number: 23CHCV01341 Hearing Date: August 20, 2024 Dept: F43 Dept. F43 Date: 8-20-24 Case # 23CHCV01341, Wvistano Daniel Perez vs. FCI Lender Services, et al. Trial Date: N/A DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT MOVING PARTY: Defendants FCI Lender Services, Inc., and Puerto Loreto, LLC RESPONDING PARTIES: No response has been filed. RELIEF REQUESTED Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint · Entire Cross-Complaint · First Cause of Action for Violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200 RULING: Demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. SUMMARY OF ACTION In February 2022, Plaintiff Wvistano Daniel Perez (Plaintiff) took out a mortgage for the subject property in the amount of $2,000,000.00. In late 2022, Plaintiff defaulted on the loan and contacted Defendant FCI to explore his loss mitigation options. Plaintiff alleges that FCI informed him that the loan was due, and he could either pay the defaulted amount or sell the property. On January 20, 2023, Defendants recorded a notice of Default against the property. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to assess Plaintiffs finances prior to recording the Notice of Default on the property. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants did not call him or otherwise attempt to contact him regarding non-foreclosure options. Plaintiff sold the property on June 22, 2023. The Court previously sustained Defendants demurrer to Plaintiffs cause of action for violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200 with leave to amend. Defendants have once again demurred to that cause of action. No opposition has been filed by Plaintiff. Defendants Request for Judicial Notice: Defendants have requested that the Court take judicial notice of several recorded deeds showing the chain of title of the subject property. The Court grants this request. ANALYSIS A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (CCP § 430.30(a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading by raising questions of law. (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties. (CCP § 452.) The court treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law& (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) In applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.) Entire Complaint Defendants demur to the entire complaint, but there is only one cause of action. Plaintiff has also requested a preliminary and permanent injunction, but because Plaintiff requested this as partis of his prayer for relief, the Court will only address the one cause of action. First Cause of Action For the First Cause of Action, Business and Professions Code § 17200 prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising. (Puentes v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 638, 643-644.) Unlawful practices are forbidden by law, be it civil or criminal, federal, state, or municipal, statutory, regulatory, or court-made. (Saunders v. Sup.Ct. (1999) 27 Cal.App.4th 832, 838.) Unfair practices constitute conduct that threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise significantly threatens or harms competition. (Cal Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 187.) When determining whether the challenged conduct is unfair within the meaning of the unfair competition law&, courts may not apply purely subjective notions of fairness. (Id. at 184.) The fraudulent prong under the UCL requires a showing of actual or potential deception to some members of the public, or harm to the public interest. (Id. at 180; see also McKell v. Wash. Mut., Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457.) A plaintiff alleging unfair business practices under these statutes must state with reasonable particularity the facts supporting the statutory elements of the violation. (Khoury v. Malys of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619.) Plaintiff has not alleged facts demonstrating that Defendants violated Section 17200. The only allegations of unfairness in Plaintiffs SAC are that Defendant acted unfairly by informing Plaintiff that the loan was due (after Plaintiff failed to pay on the loan) (SAC, ¶¶ 16, 17, 28) and that Defendant acted unfairly by refusing to review the loan for loss mitigation options (SAC, ¶ 28). Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants acted unfairly by signing off on what Plaintiff alleges was a patently false declaration of compliance. (SAC, ¶ 30.) None of the alleged unfair conduct rises to the level of conduct that threatens an incipient violation of an antitrust law. (Cal-Tech, 20 Cal.4th at 187.) Plaintiff has failed to allege conduct that would be a violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200. Plaintiff has also failed to oppose this demurrer or otherwise demonstrate how he could amend his complaint to allege this cause of action. Accordingly, Defendants demurrer to Plaintiffs First Cause of Action is sustained without leave to amend. Conclusion Defendants demurrer to Plaintiffs First Cause of Action is sustained without leave to amend. Defendants FCI Lender Services, Inc., and Puerto Loreto, LLC, are dismissed from this action. Only Defendant California TD Specialists remains as a defendant to this action, though this Court previously signed an order on June 11, 2024, that California TD shall have no further obligation to file any further responsive pleadings or otherwise respond in this matter and shall not be subject to any monetary awards, damages, or attorneys fees and costs. Moving party to give notice.
Ruling
01 BH PARTNERSHIP VS BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL.
Aug 22, 2024 |6/18/2022 |21SMCV01405
Case Number: 21SMCV01405 Hearing Date: August 22, 2024 Dept: I The court is inclined to DENY the motion to continue the trial. The court will GRANT the application to hear the motion for summary judgment less than 30 days before the trial and it will remain on the calendar for September 17, 2024. The court is aware that the parties have stipulated to a continuance. However, there has been no showing of diligence here. The parties state that plaintiff is still doing discovery, but the court is puzzled. The case was filed three years ago. The complaint was amended in April 2023, but the major contours of the case were likely known years and years ago. The trial date was set on May 15, 2023over a year ago (and after the amended complaint was filed). At that time, all parties and counsel signed off on the date. The court is aware that unforeseen things can happen, but there has been no showing of that here, nor has there been a showing as to why plaintiff has not completed discovery. Were there such a showing, the court would consider moving the trial. The court notes that not too long ago, the request would have been granted. When the court had 700 or 800 cases on its docket, it had some flexibility and could accommodate counsel. The court now has over 1100 cases on the docket. The court assumes that 93% or more will settle, but even with that assumption the court is stacking cases deep. The court cannot move a case and thereby displace other litigants who were diligent, and the court no longer has open space on its trial calendar. Therefore, absent a showing of illness or truly unforeseen and unforeseeable circ*mstances, continuances are no longer granted. The court suggests that the parties continue to monitor the courts calendar. If it becomes clear to the court that it will be engaged in trial on the current trial date, the court will be receptive to moving this case. But until or unless there is a trial continuance, the court expects full compliance with its FSC and trial orders, which can be found on-line. The court will also honor any agreement that the parties come to in writing to extend the discovery cut off dates to kick in closer to trial. For purposes of the motion for summary judgment, the court notes that under Sentry, a party has the right to have its motion for summary judgment or adjudication heard if it is timely filed. This one was timely filed. Although the court is hearing cases on pretty close to statutory notice, the court only hears such motions on Tuesdays and Thursdays, meaning that there could be a small bleed past the 75 day notice period. And there is some congestion, so the bleed could be a week or two. That seems to be what occurred here. Accordingly, the court will exercise its discretion to hear the motion less than 30 days before the trial date. Opposition and reply per code.
Ruling
HORTENSIA DELGADO VS JOSHUA SEGURA
Aug 23, 2024 |6/18/2022 |24SMCV00828
Case Number: 24SMCV00828 Hearing Date: August 23, 2024 Dept: I The motion to compel responses to the RFP and to deem the RFAs admitted are GRANTED unless responses to the RFA were served prior to the hearing. Verified responses without objection other than privilege will be served within 30 days. The responsive documents and any privilege log will be served at the same time. Plaintiff requests sanctions. Because there is no substantial justification for the failure to respond, and because it appears that an informal attempt to resolve this would have been futile in that responses were not served prior to the hearing, sanctions are GRANTED in the amount of $510 for each motion, for a total of $1020. They are awarded against plaintiff, but not counsel, and are payable within 30 days. On a separate note, the court has seen that plaintiff filed another declaration yesterday regarding this motion. The court has reviewed it and it is STRICKEN. There is no authorization for this declaration, the court granted no leave to file it, and it is utterly irrelevant. Plaintiffs counsel should refrain from filing things like this.
Document
CLAUDIA WANG, CO-TRUSTEE OF THE WANG FAMILY TRUST VS TERI BERNARDI
Jun 13, 2024 |Harry Jay Ford III |Unlawful Detainer/Residential (not drugs or wrongful eviction) (General Jurisdiction) |Unlawful Detainer/Residential (not drugs or wrongful eviction) (General Jurisdiction) |24SMCV02840
Document
MARLON LEIVA VS CESAR ANDRES GALINDO MONTENEGRO, ET AL.
Aug 15, 2024 |Mel Red Recana |Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure) (General Jurisdiction) |Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure) (General Jurisdiction) |24STCV20746
Document
AZCUE LLC. VS DARRYL SHERMAN, ET AL.
May 06, 2024 |Michael R. Amerian |Unlawful Detainer/Residential (not drugs or wrongful eviction) (General Jurisdiction) |Unlawful Detainer/Residential (not drugs or wrongful eviction) (General Jurisdiction) |24VECV02313
Document
PETER MELIUS VS JOSEPH RECHTMAN
Aug 20, 2024 |Tony L. Richardson |Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure) (General Jurisdiction) |Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure) (General Jurisdiction) |24STCV21199
Document
EASTGROUP PROPERTIES, L.P., A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS STARSHIP LOGISTICS, LLC, A WYOMING LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
Aug 16, 2024 |Wendy L. Wilcox |Unlawful Detainer/Commercial (not drugs or wrongful eviction) (General Jurisdiction) |Unlawful Detainer/Commercial (not drugs or wrongful eviction) (General Jurisdiction) |24CMCV01252
Document
BROADWAY SPRING CENTER VS ARNOLD SCHLESINGER, ET AL.
Mar 05, 2020 |Bruce G. Iwasaki |civil |Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) (General Jurisdiction) |20STCV09120
Document
CENTURY PARK VS GERARD FOX LAW, P.C.
Aug 15, 2024 |H. Chester Horn, Jr. |Unlawful Detainer/Commercial (not drugs or wrongful eviction) (General Jurisdiction) |Unlawful Detainer/Commercial (not drugs or wrongful eviction) (General Jurisdiction) |24SMCV03967
Document
JUAN RANGEL, ET AL. VS AURELIO ARROYO, ET AL.
Aug 22, 2024 |Maureen Duffy-Lewis |Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure) (General Jurisdiction) |Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure) (General Jurisdiction) |24STCV21404
