Lauren Hope V. Encompass Insurance Company Of Amer

MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT ON CVCO2306079 CITIBANK VS FUENTEZ COMPLAINT FOR COLLECTIONS BY LORETTA T FUENTEZ Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling will be issued.

Case Number: 24NWCV00138 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: C Alliant Credit Union vs. Tong V. Tran, et al. Case No.: 24NWCV00138 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 @ 10:30 AM #9 Plaintiffs Application for Pre-Trial Writ of Possession is GRANTED. The Court will hear from counsel regarding the amount of the undertaking. Plaintiff to give notice. Background This action was filed on May 17, 2024, by Plaintiff Alliant Credit Union (Plaintiff) against Defendant Tong v. Tran (Defendant). The Complaint alleges: (1) Claim and Delivery of Personal Property, for pre-trial writ of possession, and order directing transfer of personal property and restraining order, and (2) Money Due on a Contract. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant purchased a Thor Motor Coach, but defaulted on June 27, 2023, such that there is now a total of $113,439.62 due on the contract. Plaintiff has filed the instant application for a pre-trial writ of possession. The application is unopposed as of July 12, 2024. Legal Standard Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter, the plaintiff may apply pursuant to this chapter for a writ of possession by filing a written application for the writ with the court in which the action is brought. (CCP § 512.010(a).) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 512.010(b), the application must be submitted under oath and include: (1) A showing of the basis of the plaintiff's claim and that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property claimed. If the basis of the plaintiff's claim is a written instrument, a copy of the instrument shall be attached. (2) A showing that the property is wrongfully detained by the defendant, of the manner in which the defendant came into possession of the property, and, according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff, of the reason for the detention. (3) A particular description of the property and a statement of its value. (4) A statement, according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff, of the location of the property and, if the property, or some part of it, is within a private place which may have to be entered to take possession, a showing that there is probable cause to believe that such property is located there. (5) A statement that the property has not been taken for a tax, assessment, or fine, pursuant to a statute; or seized under an execution against the property of the plaintiff; or, if so seized, that it is by statute exempt from such seizure. Before the hearing on the Writ of Possession, the Defendant must be served with (1) a copy of the summons and complaint; (2) a Notice of Application and Hearing; and (3) a copy of the application and any affidavit in support thereof. (CCP § 512.030.) The writ will be issued if the court finds that the plaintiff's claim is probably valid and the other requirements for issuing the writ are established. (CCP § 512.040(b).) A claim has probable validity where it is more likely than not that the plaintiff will obtain a judgment against the defendant on that claim. (CCP § 511.090.) Prior to the issuance of a writ of possession, the Plaintiff must file an undertaking in an amount not less than twice the value of the defendant's interest in the property or in a greater amount. (CCP § 515.010(a).) Discussion Here, Plaintiff has stated the basis for its claim and entitlement to possession of the Thor Motor Coach: pursuant to a contract between Plaintiff and Defendant. (Chism Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff includes a copy of the retail installment sales contract, which states in the third section: We may take the vehicle from you. If you default, we may take (repossess) the vehicle from you . . . ( Id. at Ex. A [PDF p. 7].) Indeed, Plaintiff attests that Decedent defaulted on June 27, 2023, and currently owes $113,439.62 under the contract. ( Chism Decl., ¶ 12.) The contract in Exhibit A constitutes a copy of the written instrument that the claim is based on. Plaintiff recounts that demand was made upon defendant Tong Tran for surrender of possession of the motor vehicle to plaintiff, but defendant has failed, refused or neglected to return possession of such property, or any part thereof, to plaintiff. (Chism Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. C.) Thus, the Motor Coach is being wrongfully detained. Defendant entered into a contract to purchase the Motor Coach on May 13, 2023. (Chism Decl, Ex. A.) Plaintiff has described the property: it is a 2023 Thor Motor Coach Sequence motor vehicle, Vehicle Identification No. 3C6MRVUG2NE129083. (Chism Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff states that the property has not been taken for a tax, assessment, or fine nor seized under an execution against the property of Plaintiff. (Chism Decl., ¶ 9.) Plaintiff states that the current location of the property is 10182 Roselee Dr., Garden Grove, CA 92840. This is the address where Defendant Tong Tran resides. (Chism Decl., ¶ 10.) Accordingly, the Application for Pre-Trial Writ of Possession is GRANTED. Undertaking Code of Civil Procedure section 515.010 requires an undertaking to be filed before the writ issues in the amount of not less than twice the value of the defendants interest in the property. The Court will hear from Counsel regarding the amount of the undertaking.

MOTION FOR ORDER TO DEEM BANK OF AMERICA N.A. vs MATTERS ADMITTED TO DEEM RFAS CVMV2401467 CHAVEZ ADMITTED BY BANK OF AMERICA N.A. Tentative Ruling: Motions are granted.

Matter on the Discovery Calendar for Friday, July 19, 2024, line 8, PLAINTIFF JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. MOTION FOR ORDER THAT MATTERS IN REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF TRUTH OF FACTS BE DEEMED ADMITTED (PART 2 OF 2) For the 9:00 a.m. Discovery calendar, all attorneys and parties are required to appear remotely. Hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link (DISCOVERY, DEPARTMENT 302 DAILY AT 9:00 A.M.), or dial the corresponding number and use the meeting ID, and password for Discovery Department 302. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to psw@hassard.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must e-mail it to the Judge Pro Tem. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. end of part 2 of 2 tentative ruling) = (302/JPT)

Matter on the Law and Motion Calendar for Friday, July 19, 2024, Line 16. PLAINTIFF CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A.'s Motion For Order Setting Aside Dismissal Of The Case. Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Order Setting Aside Dismissal of the Case is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to file a Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to the Stipulation of the Parties within 15 calendar days of the filing of this order. Friday's Law & Motion Calendar will be called out of Dept. 301. Anyone intending to appear in person should report to Dept. 301. However, anyone intending to appear remotely should use the regular Zoom information for Dept. 302's Law & Motion Calendar for 9:30 a.m. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the defendant is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RCE)

Matter on the Discovery Calendar for Monday, Jul-15-2024, Line 3, PLAINTIFFS YULONG ECO-MATERIALS LTD, and EV BIOLOGICS CORP.'S, FORMERLY KNOWN AS YULONG, Motion To Compel Further Responses By Ridgway Smith And For Monetary Sanctions. Continued to August, 6, 2024, on the court's motion. No JPT available. (D302)

For Plaintiff Partners Personnel Management Services, LLC.: Cheryl A. Canty For Defendant Powdercoat Services, LLC: David Bland RULING For all reasons discussed herein, plaintiff Partners Personnel Management Services, LLC’s motion to enter judgment pursuant to defendants’ default under settlement and release agreement is GRANTED. The court will sign the proposed order submitted by plaintiff. Background: This action commenced on January 8, 2024, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiff Partners Personnel Management Services, LLC (“plaintiff”) against defendant Powdercoat Services, LLC, (“defendant”) for breach of contract, nonpayment on an open book account, and nonpayment on an account stated. As alleged in the complaint: In July 2017, defendant entered into a written agreement with plaintiff for the provision of staffing services. (Complaint, ¶ 5.) Between October 2023, and December 2023, defendant utilized plaintiff’s temporary labor and plaintiff paid the wages, taxes, benefits, and workers’ compensation premiums for the labor utilized by defendant. (Id., ¶ 7.) Despite demands for payment, defendant has not paid plaintiff, as agreed, between October 2023, and December 2023. (Id., at ¶ 9.) If defendant was served with the summons and complaint, plaintiff did not file proof of service of the same. On March 1, 2024, the parties entered into a written settlement agreement providing for the payment of $100,000.00, in equal payments made over a twelve-month period beginning on March 28, 2024. (Canty Dec., ¶ 3 & Exh. A.) The parties also executed a “Stipulation for Entry of Order Re: Court’s Retention of Jurisdiction Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6.” (Id., at ¶ 4 & Exh. B.) Defendant defaulted and, as of the date of the filing of the present motion, has failed to cure the default or make any payment. (Id., at ¶ 5.) The settlement agreement provides that in the event of default, plaintiff could recover interest from the date of default at the rate of ten percent plus costs and attorney’s fees. (Id., at ¶ 8.) Plaintiff seeks the balance owed pursuant to the agreement of $100,000.00, $40.00 for motion fees, interest of $2,000.00 and attorney’s fees of $5,050.00, for a total of $107,090.00. Plaintiff now moves to enter judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, including agreed upon costs, attorney’s fees, and interest. No opposition or other responsive documents have been filed by defendant. Analysis Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides: “(a) If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement. (b) For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following: “(1) The party. “(2) An attorney who represents the party. “(3) If the party is an insurer, an agent who is authorized in writing by the insurer to sign on the insurer’s behalf. (c) Paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (b) do not apply in a civil harassment action, an action brought pursuant to the Family Code, an action brought pursuant to the Probate Code, or a matter that is being adjudicated in a juvenile court or a dependency court. (d) In addition to any available civil remedies, an attorney who signs a writing on behalf of a party pursuant to subdivision (b) without the party’s express authorization shall, absent good cause, be subject to professional discipline.” “A court ruling on a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.” (Hines v. Lukes (2008) Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.) “If the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Id.) A court hearing a motion brought under section 664.6 may “receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter the terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment”, but may not “create the material terms of a settlement, as opposed to deciding what terms the parties themselves have previously agreed upon.” (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 810.) “A settlement agreement is a contract, and the legal principles which apply to contracts generally apply to settlement contracts.” (Ibid.) “In order for acceptance of a proposal to result in the formation of a contract, the proposal “ ‘must be sufficiently definite, or must call for such definite terms in the acceptance, that the performance promised is reasonably certain.’ ” [Citation.] A proposal “ ‘cannot be accepted so as to form a contract unless the terms of the contract are reasonably certain. [¶] The terms of a contract are reasonably certain if they provide a basis for determining . . . the existence of a breach and for giving an appropriate remedy.’ ” [Citation.] If, by contrast, a supposed “ ‘contract’ ” does not provide a basis for determining what obligations the parties have agreed to, and hence does not make possible a determination of whether those agreed obligations have been breached, there is no contract. (See, e.g., 1 Williston on Contracts (4th ed. 1990, Lord) § 4:18, p. 414 [“It is a necessary requirement that an agreement, in order to be binding, must be sufficiently definite to enable the courts to give it an exact meaning.”]; see also Civ. Code § 3390, subd. 5 [a contract is not specifically enforceable unless the terms are “ ‘sufficiently certain to make the precise act which is to be done clearly ascertainable.’ ”] )” (Id. at pp. 811-812.) The parties entered into a valid and enforceable contract, with reasonably certain terms, and have agreed that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. As noted above, the parties executed and filed a “Stipulation for Entry of Order Re: Court’s Retention of Jurisdiction Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6.” “A written stipulation between attorneys recognizing jurisdiction of the court over the parties constitutes a General appearance by defendant.” (General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 449, 453.) The motion will be granted. The court has reviewed the proposed order submitted by plaintiff and will sign it as drafted.

Matter on calendar for Tuesday, July 16, 2024, Line 4, PLAINTIFF CITIBANK, N.A.'s Motion For Order That Matters In Request For Admission Of Truth Of Facts Bk Deemed Admitted. The matter is continued to August 13, 2024, on the court's motion. =(302/JPT).