Proposed Order(Related Document) - Proposed Request for Clerk's Entry of Default Against Defendants June 21, 2023 (2024)

Case

Wvjp 2021 4 Lp v. Crane, L E Bud

Aug 30, 2024 |Chris Jay Baumann |Foreign Judgment |2024CV032659

Case

Alexander, Robert et al v. Mountain View Endeavors Inc

Case

Abbondante, George et al v. 2548 Tortugas LLC et al

Sep 04, 2024 |Chris Jay Baumann |Foreign Judgment |2024CV032673

Case

Rg Brinkmann Co v. Air Comfort Inc et al

Sep 03, 2024 |Mark T Bailey |Mechanic's Lien |2024CV032669

Case

1728 Grove Propt Owner LLC v. Integrity Concrete And Foundations LLC

Sep 04, 2024 |Martin Egelhoff |Mechanic's Lien |2024CV032679

Case

Castor LLC v. Fluid Fleet Services LLC

Case

Holcim Wcr Inc v. Titan Logistics Kw Inc et al

Sep 03, 2024 |Kandace Gerdes |Mechanic's Lien |2024CV032664

Case

Sooper Credit Union v. Garcia, Mariah Victoria

Sep 04, 2024 |Jon Jay Olafson |Replevin |2024CV032684

Case

We Oneil Constr Co Of Colo v. Apex Integrated Syst LLC

Ruling

ROCK CREEK CAPITAL, LLC VS NORMA S CARCAMO

Sep 05, 2024 |23CHCV00264

Case Number: 23CHCV00264 Hearing Date: September 5, 2024 Dept: F47 Dept. F47 Date: 9/5/24 TRIAL DATE: 10/28/24 Case #23CHCV00264 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Motion filed on 8/5/24. MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Rock Creek Capital, LLC RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Norma S. Carcamo RELIEF REQUESTED: An order entering judgment for Plaintiff and against Defendant in this matter. RULING: The motion is placed off calendar. SUMMARY OF ACTION & PROCEDURAL HISTORY On 1/30/23, Plaintiff Rock Creek Capital, LLC (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendant Norma S. Carcamo (Defendant) for breach of contract. On 4/4/23, Defendant, representing herself, filed an answer to the complaint. On 2/2/24, Plaintiff served Defendant, by U.S. Mail, with Requests for Admissions, Set 1. Defendant failed to serve responses. Therefore, on 4/4/24, Plaintiff filed and served a motion seeking an order deeming the truth of matters specified in Plaintiffs Request for Admissions served on Defendant. Defendant did not oppose or otherwise respond to the motion. On 7/11/24, the Court granted the motion to deem the requests for admissions admitted and ordered Plaintiff to give notice. (See 7/11/24 Minute Order). There is no evidence in the court file that Plaintiff gave notice of the 7/11/24 ruling. On 8/5/24, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings which requests that the Court enter Judgment for Plaintiff and against Defendant in this matter. Defendant has not opposed or otherwise responded to the motion. ANALYSIS There is no evidence that the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings was served on Defendant. No proofs of service are attached to the moving papers filed on 8/5/24. The separate proof of service filed by Plaintiffs counsel on 8/5/24, which would seemingly be for the instant motion, indicates that it is for: 1. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES, IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF; 2. NOTICE OF NONAPPEARANCE AT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR ALTERNATIVELY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; 3. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES; 4. SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF; 5. NOTICE OF LODGMENT OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES; 6. [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT A motion for summary judgment and the necessary supporting documents have not been filed. CCP 437(b)(1). Additionally, service of documents on 8/5/24 for a 9/5/24 hearing date would not provide the necessary 75 days plus 5 days notice required when a motion for summary judgment is served by mail. See CCP 437(a)(2). However, it seems like a motion for summary judgment would be the appropriate motion rather than the motion for judgment on the pleadings which has been filed. Further, contrary to Plaintiffs assertion, Coyne (1950) 36 C2d 257, 262 does not indicate that [i]f the Motion to Deem Matters Admitted establishes Defendant has no defense a Motion for Summary Judgment under California Case of Civil Procedure section 437c cannot be granted, the defect may be raised by (1) demurrer or (2) a motion to strike, or (3) by Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (See Memorandum of Points & Authorities, p.2:4-8). Rather, Coyne notes that it is not the purpose of a motion for summary judgment under CCP 437c to test the sufficiency of the pleadings and goes on to state that [i]f the pleadings are insufficient, the defect may be raised by demurrer or motion to strike, or by motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Coyne, supra. Plaintiff goes on to contend that Defendants answer is insufficient based on the matters deemed admitted by the Court on 7/11/24. However, Plaintiff has not made a proper request for judicial notice of the order. A request for judicial notice must be made in a separate document. See CRC 3.1113(l). Here, Plaintiff merely makes the request for judicial notice within the memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion. (See Memorandum of Points & Authorities, p.4:1-3). Plaintiff also refers to an exhibit (the Order which is purportedly attached as Exhibit 1) which is not included with the motion. (See Memorandum of Points & Authorities, p.3:23-24). Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient authority and/or analysis to establish that a motion for judgment on the pleadings, rather than a motion for summary judgment, is the appropriate vehicle for obtaining judgment in its favor under the circ*mstances. Plaintiff also improperly includes a request for an award of costs in the motion. Such a request should be made by the filing of a memorandum of costs after judgment has been entered in favor of Plaintiff. Here, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of costs at the same time the motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed. CONCLUSION The motion is placed off calendar.

Ruling

CITIBANK N.A. vs PICOTT

Sep 05, 2024 |Frank Anthony Moschetti |CVCO2402100

MOTION FOR ORDER THAT MATTERS INCVCO2402100 CITIBANK VS PICOTT REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF TRUTH OFFACTS BE ADMITTED BY CITIBANKTentative Ruling: No tentative at this time.

Ruling

Absolute Resolutions Investments, Llc vs Meghan White

Sep 04, 2024 |23CV-00982

23CV-00982 Absolute Resolutions Investments, LLC v. Meghan WhiteMotion for Order that Requests for Admission be Deemed Admitted and Request for Sanctionsof $60.Appearance required. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of thecourt at (209) 725-4111 to seek permission and arrange for a remote appearance.

Ruling

CITIBANK N.A. vs MICHAELSON

Sep 08, 2024 |Frank Anthony Moschetti |CVCO2403915

CITIBANK N.A. VS MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATIONCVCO2403915MICHAELSON AND STAY PROCEEDINGSTentative Ruling: No tentative at this time, due to lack of notice as required pursuant toLocal Rule 3316.

Ruling

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. vs. Rawson

Sep 06, 2024 |23CV-0203657

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. VS. RAWSONCase Number: 23CV-0203657Tentative Ruling on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: This action was dismissed onSeptember 5, 2024, pursuant to stipulation per CCP 664.6. The file is therefore closed and noappearances are necessary on this calendar.

Ruling

Cavalry SPV I, LLC vs Nickolas Salazar

Sep 09, 2024 |23CV-03528

23CV-03528 Calvary SPV I, LLC v, Nickolas SalazarCourt TrialAppearance required. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of thecourt at (209) 725-4111 to seek permission and arrange for a remote appearance.

Ruling

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs PEREZ

Sep 02, 2024 |CVMV2400692

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTON COMPLAINT FOR COLLECTIONSWELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.CVMV2400692 CRC 3.740 ($10,000 AND UNDER) OFvs PEREZWELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. BY WELLSFARGO BANK, N.A.Tentative Ruling: Granted.Defendant’s Opposition fails to present evidence establishing the existence of at least one triableissue of material fact.

Ruling

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. VS ANGELICA S NACCARATI

Sep 09, 2024 |19CHCV00777

Case Number: 19CHCV00777 Hearing Date: September 9, 2024 Dept: F43 Bank of America, N.A. vs. Angelica S. Naccarati Trial Date: N/A MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DEFAULT MOVING PARTY: Defendant Angelica S. Naccarati RESPONDING PARTY: No response has been filed. RELIEF REQUESTED Defendant is requesting that the Court enter an order setting aside or vacating the default and default judgment entered against her. RULING: Motion is granted. SUMMARY OF ACTION On September 26, 2019, Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. (Plaintiff) filed this collections action against Defendant Angelica S. Naccarati (Defendant). On December 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed proof of personal service indicating that Defendant was served at 2923 Montrose Ave. Apt. 101, La Crescenta, CA 91214. Thereafter, default judgment was entered against Defendant on January 6, 2020. Defendant argues in her motion to set aside default, filed on August 12, 2024, that she never received the complaint, as she does not live at 2923 Montrose Ave. She claims that this address is where her sister used to live. Plaintiff claims that she has lived in La Canada Flintridge for the last 20 years at 4843 Ocean View Blvd., La Canada Flintridge, CA 91011. While the proof of service indicates that Defendant was served via personal service at 2923 Montrose Ave., Defendant claims that she did not become aware of this lawsuit until her employer was served with an order for garnishment in late December 2023. Defendants sister submitted a declaration confirming that it was she, not the defendant, who lived at the address where service supposedly took place. Defendants attorney filed his appearance in this case in January 2024. No response has been filed by Plaintiff. ANALYSIS Defendant filed this motion in part pursuant to CCP Section 473 (d), which allows the court to vacate a default judgment that is void because the defendant had not been properly served with the summons and complaint. (Ellard v. Conway (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 540, 544.) The law favors hearings on the merits, so any doubts as to the application of section 473 should be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default. (See Shapiro v. Clark (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1139-1140.) Furthermore, a trial court has wide discretion to grant relief under CCP § 473(d). (Berman v. Klassman (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 900, 909.) Based on the declarations of defendant and her sister, it is undisputed that defendant was never served with the summons and complaint. As a result, the default judgment is void. CONCLUSION Defendants motion to set aside and vacate entry of default and default judgment is granted. Although defendant filed a form general denial with her motion, she must re-file her answer through the courts electronic filing system within 30 days. Moving party to give notice.

Document

Alexander, Robert et al v. Mountain View Endeavors Inc

Document

We Oneil Constr Co Of Colo v. Apex Integrated Syst LLC

Document

Rg Brinkmann Co v. Air Comfort Inc et al

Sep 03, 2024 |Mark T Bailey |Mechanic's Lien |2024CV032669

Document

1728 Grove Propt Owner LLC v. Integrity Concrete And Foundations LLC

Sep 04, 2024 |Martin Egelhoff |Mechanic's Lien |2024CV032679

Document

Sooper Credit Union v. Garcia, Mariah Victoria

Sep 04, 2024 |Jon Jay Olafson |Replevin |2024CV032684

Document

Wvjp 2021 4 Lp v. Crane, L E Bud

Aug 30, 2024 |Chris Jay Baumann |Foreign Judgment |2024CV032659

Document

Castor LLC v. Fluid Fleet Services LLC

Document

Alexander, Robert et al v. Mountain View Endeavors Inc