What is a Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession?

Useful Rulings on Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession

Recent Rulings on Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Representing himself, he filed a Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession on November 21, 2019 alleging that he had a written rental agreement with a person other than the landlord. On that same date he filed his Answer-Unlawful Detainer generally denying the allegations of the Complaint and asserting various affirmative defenses. One defense asserted was that the notice served failed to provide a 90-day notice. Claimant Ramon Jose did not allege the existence of any contract with the Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

STRATEGIC EMERGING ECONOMICS INS VS DAVID SHOR ET AL

. ¶21] On December 14, 2019, defendants were duly served with a copy of the summons and complaint in this action and the prejudgment claim of right to possession was served on all unnamed occupants of the premises [Id. ¶22] Defendants are still in possession of the premises. [Id. ¶23] Defendants have not tendered the amount of the debt for which the property was given as security. [Id. ¶24] 3.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

DUETSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY VS JUAN LOPEZ ET AL

In opposition to the motion, plaintiff provides evidence that each of the Lopez defendants was served by substitute service pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 415.20 and 415.46. “The preferred way to serve a defendant, of course, is by personal delivery, as prescribed in section 415.10, as this is the most likely to ensure actual notice to the defendant. [Citation.] Service is deemed complete at the time of delivery.

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2019

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

TWINMED, LLC, VS TCPRNC, LLC,, ET AL.

ANALYSIS: Specially-Appearing Defendants move for an order quashing service of summons and dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction on the grounds that (1) Plaintiff failed to serve Specially-Appearing Defendants with a copy of the Summons and Complaint as required by Code of Civil Procedure sections 415.10-415.46; and (2) the Court lacks general and/or specific jurisdiction because Specially-Appearing Defendants lack any minimum contacts with the forum state. (Motion, p. ii:2-13.) A.

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2019

BOSCO CREDIT VS. GROSSI

Frasier, however, is a party by virtue of having filed a Prejudgment Claim of Right To Possession on March 6, 2019. Accordingly, Ms. Fraiser cannot be removed as a defendant by virtue of a voluntary dismissal. Thus, the motion remains on calendar.) When a party files a motion for summary judgment in an unlawful detainer, defendant is entitled to present opposition “orally at the time of hearing or in writing.” (C.R.C. 3.1351(b).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2019

PRAPAI BENJAUTHRIT VS. BOONSIENG BENJAUTHRIT

There are no copies of such documents submitted to establish the posting or the follow up mailing, or to permit the court to confirm the prejudgment claim of right to possession conformed with CCP § 415.46 (f). This is insufficient to persuade the court that service complied with CCP § 415.46. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction or Stay Unlawful Detainer Proceedings is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON AS TRUSTEE FOR STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-16 V. HORNER

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 415.46, no occupant of the premises retains any possessory interest of any kind following service of the writ of possession. See CCP § 715.020(d) (explaining that ‘if the summons, complaint, and prejudgment claim of right to possession were served upon the occupants in accordance with Section 415.46, no occupant of the premises, whether or not the occupant is named in the judgment for possession, may object to the enforcement of the judgment ...’)”

  • Hearing

    May 30, 2019

EDWARD TOBINICK MD VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CA

Inefficient Staffing of the Case Petitioner’s attorneys billed at least 415.46 hours: Olson for about 170 hours; O’Brien for 168 hours; and Fields for 48.3 hours.[7] (Golds Decl. ¶ 16; Olson Decl. ¶ 12’ O’Brien Decl. ¶ 25.) Thus, Olson was the highest biller on the case, both in terms of hours and rate. As discussed above, this action did not involve any particularly novel or complex issues of CPRA law.

  • Hearing

    Apr 23, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MARALAN VS. LAGUNA DANA INVESTMENTS, LLC

As a matter of equity, she was identified as a tenant in the addendum to the lease, and she appeared in the unlawful detainer action by filing her answer and her prejudgment claim of right to possession. So as a matter of equity, entry of judgment against her was not improper. 2. It is true, but irrelevant, that the trial court in the unlawful detainer action, did not enter Ghasemian’s default or take her default judgment.

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2019

NGUYEN V. WINSTON

The Ninth Circuit concluded: “The unlawful detainer judgment and writ of possession entered pursuant to California Code Civil Procedure § 415.46 bestowed legal title and all rights of possession upon Eden Place. See Vella, 142 Cal.Rptr. 414, 572 P.2d at 30. Thus, at the time of the filing of the bankruptcy petition, Perl had been completely divested of all legal and equitable possessory rights that would otherwise be protected by the automatic stay. See id.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2019

PRAPAI BENJAUTHRIT VS. BOONSIENG BENJAUTHRIT

The court must determine if service complied with CCP Section 415.46(e)(l) which would invoke CCP Section 715.020(d), which would require automatic eviction of Prapai Benjauthrit, even though she is not named on the U.D. judgment. The plaintiff could be entitled to a post judgment hearing pursuant to CCP Section 1174.3(a)(1). It should be noted that plaintiff Prapai Benjauthrit is not named in the U.D. judgment.

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

SUYEN, LLC VS MEHER TEUFENKJIAN

., proof of service of summons, complaint and prejudgment claim of right to possession filed 1/15/16 as to All Other Occupants in Possession in this case); Granted as to Exhibit “6” (i.e., proof of service of summons, complaint and prejudgment claim of right to possession filed 1/15/16 as to Autosports European, Inc. in this case); Granted as to Exhibit “7” (i.e., proof of service of summons, complaint and prejudgment claim of right to possession filed 1/15/16 as to Scuderia Investments, LLC in this case); Granted

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2018

WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION V. NELSON HERRERA, ET AL.

Mark Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) subsequently filed a prejudgment claim of right to possession on September 18, 2018, asserting he is an occupant of the subject property and acknowledging his understanding that he would be added as a defendant as a result of filing the claim. Lisa Peralta (“Peralta”) later filed her own prejudgment claim of right to possession on October 11, 2018 stating the same.

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2018

MLCFC 2007-8 WEST SIXTH RETAIL LLC VS HND WIDE CORP ET AL

He filed a Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession of the property with the Demurrer. On January 31, 2018, this court dismissed the action pursuant to a Stipulation to Dismiss Action between all named parties. It does not appear that Rhee was part of the stipulation. On March 6, 2018, this court entered Judgment pursuant to a Stipulation for Judgment between the named parties. Rhee was part of this stipulation. Rhee filed the present Motion to Vacate Dismissal on April 18, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2018

CEDRIC ANDERSON ET AL VS FREDDIE MAC ET AL

On November 5, 2013, Freddie Mac served the summons and complaint with a prejudgment claim of right to possession form on Purvis Washington and “All Unknown Occupants.” (RJN Exh. B.) Plaintiffs allege they were tenants at this time and therefore would be among “all unknown occupants.” Plaintiffs were deemed to have been served with the summons, complaint, and a prejudgment claim of right to possession. (RJN Exh. B.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2018

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FRITCH, JAMES VS. ANDREWS, JR., FRANK, ET AL

Order to Show Cause re Stipulated Judgment and Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession On June 14, 2018, the court set an order to show cause regarding why the stipulation for entry of judgment filed in this action on January 22, 2018, should not be set aside, and why the prejudgment claim of right to possession, filed November 7, 2017, should not be stricken.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2018

  • Judge

    MICHAEL A. JACQUES

  • County

    Placer County, CA

BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY FUND 2016 LLC V. RICHARD D. MEANEY, ET AL.

Case No. 17CV05003 was filed on 11/6/17 against prior owners Richard Meaney and Ness Carroll, who answered claiming possession, and Steve Travis appeared through a prejudgment claim of right to possession. She requested that discovery be conducted, and authenticates Mr. Travis’ responses to form interrogatories, as well as the complaint in that action. Ms. Reyes declares further that no landlord/tenant relationship exists between plaintiff and defendants.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2018

MORGAN STANLEY MTG. LOAN TRUST VS. GUTIERREZ, MARITZA L.

Riddex may file a prejudgment claim of right to possession and response to the complaint on or before April 27, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Apr 17, 2018

  • Judge

    MICHAEL A. JACQUES

  • County

    Placer County, CA

RALPH PARTNERS II, LLC VS HILDA P SANCHEZ

(There was an issue regarding a 90 day notice required under CCP §§ 1161a(c) and 1161b for tenants because, in that case, defendant Ian Robinson filed prejudgment claim of right to possession declaring that he occupied the property pursuant to a rental agreement with the defendant Sanchez.) Motion: Plaintiff moves “for an order granting summary judgment or summary adjudication of all affirmative defenses specified in Defendant’s Answer.” The matter was set for a hearing on March 9.

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2018

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

RALPH PARTNERS II, LLC VS HILDA P SANCHEZ ET AL

(There was an issue regarding a 90 day notice required under CCP §§ 1161a(c) and 1161b for tenants because, in that case, defendant Ian Robinson filed prejudgment claim of right to possession declaring that he occupied the property pursuant to a rental agreement with the defendant Sanchez.) Motion: Plaintiff moves “for an order granting summary judgment or summary adjudication of all affirmative defenses specified in Defendant’s Answer.” There is no opposition to the motion on file.

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2018

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

That the CCP §415.46 default was entered as to all occupants other than the named defendant was due to a series of assumptions and mistakes on both sides. This motion is based on CCP §473(b) and supported by the declarations of paralegal Nealy Kendrick and of attorney Carlos Lloreda, Jr. Attorney Lloreda testifies that he prepared an answer on behalf of all occupants. Ms.

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2018

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY FUND 2016, LLC VS. MELE M. UPERESA, ET AL.

Sogelau filed a prejudgment claim of right to possession that added her as a defendant. Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion fails to identify Sogelau, and nowhere in the motion papers does Plaintiff discuss the elements of this claim against Sogelau. Therefore, any motion as to Sogelau is DENIED because Plaintiff has not met its burden of establishing all the elements of this unlawful detainer claim against Sogelau. Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2018

ALICIA HERRERA VS. GEORGE ANDINO ET AL

Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession served the Summons and Complaint. See Proof of Service filed on November 1, 2017. =(501/REQ)

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2017

RALPH PARTNERS, II, LLC VS HILDA P SANCHEZ ET AL

On October 23, defendant Ian Robinson filed prejudgment claim of right to possession declaring that he occupies the property and has a rental agreement with the former owner who lost the property to foreclosure. On October 24, Robinson filed an answer to the complaint generally denying the allegations and stating as an affirmative defense that tenants residing in a foreclosed property are entitled to 90 days notice before eviction proceedings can begin.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2017

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ANTON HOFFMAN V. ELIZABETH DE LA GARZA

Jonathan Blackwell filed a prejudgment claim of right to possession and is therefore now a Defendant in the action. On August 31, 2017, De La Garza filed a demurrer to the complaint. On September 6, 2017, Blackwell filed his demurrer. Both parties demur on the grounds the Three Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit (Notice) attached to the complaint is defective as it overstates the amount of back rent due.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2017

1 2 3     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.