Cpi Amherst Sfr Vs Mario Class

Case Number: 23STCV25326 Hearing Date: July 30, 2024 Dept: 56 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT PATRICK MOLLOY, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, vs. CAREY HELLMAN, etc., et al., Defendants. CASE NO.: 231STCV25326 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT Date: July 30, 2024 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 MOVING PARTY: Defendant Carey Hellman dba Hellman Associates (Hellman) RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers. BACKGROUND This action was filed on October 17, 2023 and arises out of construction work performed by Defendant Hellman on Plaintiffs duplex (the Project). The proposal for the Project was presented by Hellman to Plaintiffs on December 10, 2022. (Complaint, para. 6.) Hellman performed work on the Project from January 6 to April, 2023. (Complaint, para. 12.) Plaintiffs allege that After some of [the allegedly deficient work] came to light, [Plaintiffs] learned that Hellmans contractors license with the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) was inactive or had lapsed. They further discovered that some of the subcontractors Hellman hired for the work were also not licensed. (Complaint, para. 16.) The Complaint alleges causes of action for Breach of Implied-In-Fact Contract; 2) Negligence; 3) Breach of Implied Warranty; 4) Disgorgement Per Bus. & Prof. Code (B&PC) §7031; 5) Unfair Business Practices Per B&PC § 17200, et seq. ; and 6) Fraud. All of these causes of action rely, among other things, on Plaintiffs allegation that Hellman was an unlicensed contractor at the time he performed work on the Project. On December 22, 2023, Defendant Hellman filed his demurrer to the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action of the Complaint. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Defendants Request for Judicial Notice of a copy of a Contractors License naming Hellman and dated January 1982 is DENIED. This is not an official record of the status of Hellmans license at the time of his work on the Project. The Court does, however, accept the Declaration of Christopher L. Mass, Esq. in Support of Opposition to Demurrer (Mass Decl.), which provides the foundation for the record of the status of Hellmans contractors license since November 1, 2009. This document evidences that Defendants license was not active during the period of time that Defendant was working on the Project. DISCUSSION Legal Standard Legal Standard for Demurrer [A] demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint. ( Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.) A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (See Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].) For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true, but the reviewing court does not assume the truth of conclusions of law. ( Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.) Analysis for Demurrer Fourth Cause of Action Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs Fifth Cause of Action for Disgorgement is not a valid cause of action because it is based on the allegation that Defendant was not licensed while working on the Project, whereas Defendant possessed a contractors license during the entire construction project. Defendants purported evidence of his initial licensure in 1983 does not, however, support his contention that he was actively licensed when he worked on the Project. [1] The evidence supplied by the Mass Declaration shows that Defendant was not actively licensed during his work on the Project. Defendants Demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action of the Complaint is therefore OVERRULED. Fifth Cause of Action Defendants Demurrer to the Fifth Cause of Action for violation of the B&PC Section 17200 for Unfair Business Practices depends upon his position that he was not in violation of the CSLB rules for contractor licensing at the time he performed work on the Project. As indicated above, the Court does not accept Defendants position that he was licensed throughout his work on the Project. Even if he were so licensed, which apparently he was not, the allegation that his subcontractors were also not licensed would provide all necessary support for an Unfair Business Practices claim. (Complaint, para. 16.) Defendants Demurrer to the Fifth Cause of Action of the Complaint is therefore OVERRULED. Sixth Cause of Action Defendants Demurrer to the Sixth Cause of Action for Fraud is also based upon the premise that Defendant was properly licensed throughout the time he worked on the Project. Defendant has not established that this is the case and, for that reason, the Demurrer to the Sixth Cause of Action is OVERRULED. Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. Dated this 30th day of July 2024 Hon. Holly J. Fujie Judge of the Superior Court [1] Although the Demurrer makes a reference to the one year statute of limitations for claims under B&PC Section 7031, Defendant worked on the Project from January through April of 2023 and this action was filed on October 17, 2023 well within any one year statute of limitations.

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 25, 2024 line 3. DEFENDANT U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, BUT SOLELEY AS TRUSTEE OF CITIGROUP MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2018-B, RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT. SUSTAINED. The Court notes that Plaintiff's opposition brief is again oversized. This is the last time the Court will review any filings by the Plaintiff's or Plaintiff's counsel that violate procedural requirements. The Court further notes that this oversized opposition again fails to address or recognize multiple arguments and authorities raised in the moving papers. The Court striking Plaintiff's oversized opposition on March 12, 2024 did not result in Plaintiff complying with the rules or addressing the demurrer on the merits. The Court orders Plaintiff's counsel to prepare and present hard copies for execution at the hearing: (1) an Order reflecting the Court's ruling of March 12, 2024; and (2) an order reflecting the Court's ruling on this demurrer. Plaintiff is ordered to serve copies of these orders to the California State Bar forthwith and file a declaration of service with the Court no later than August 1, 2024. Demurrer to causes of action for Violation of CC 2923.6(c); Violation of 2923.7 and Violation of 2924.10 is sustained without leave to amend. CC 2920.5(c)(2)(C). Demurrer to the cause of action for violation of CC 2923.5 is sustained with final leave to amend for Plaintiff to allege an actionable claim arising out of failure to comply with CC 2923.5 in conjunction with the recordation of June 16, 2022 NOD on September 20, 2022. Plaintiff must clearly set forth a legally available remedy sought for such violation within the body of this cause of action. Demurrer to the cause of action for violation of CC2924.9 is sustained with leave to amend for Plaintiff to allege an actionable violation of CC 2924.9 in light of Foote v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Plaintiff must clearly set forth a legally available remedy sought for such violation within the body of this cause of action. Demurrer to the cause of action for negligence is sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiff fails to cite any valid authority to support this cause of action and fails to address Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A (2022) 12 Cal.5th 905, 948. Demurrer to the causes of action for UCL violation and cancellation of instruments is sustained with leave to amend for Plaintiff to allege facts in support of each element of these causes of action. Defendant's request for judicial Notice is granted. =(501/CFH) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified and the opposing party does not appear.

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 23, 2024 line 2. DEFENDANT BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK , AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF CWHEQ REVOLVING HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2007-A, SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT is continued to September 13, 2024. =(501/CFH) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified and the opposing party does not appear.

CV-22-003529 – AHLUWALIA, NIRMAL KUMAR vs KHACHO, ESAM - a) Plaintiffs’ Motion to be Relieved from Deemed Admissions (CCP 2033.300 (a)) - GRANTED, conditionally; b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue or Dismiss Time-Barred Motion for Summary Judgment – MOOT. a) GRANTED, conditionally. The Court finds based on the totality of circumstances that Plaintiff’s Counsel’s cardiac condition, the medications for which Counsel states cause him to suffer drowsiness and severe head pain that adversely affect “his ability to think and reason” and negatively impacted his ability to timely respond to Defendant’s Requests for Admissions support a finding of excusable neglect by the Court in respect of said Request for Admissions. (Code of Civil Proc. § 2033.300; New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, rehearing denied, review denied). Defendant’s Requests for Admissions which were deemed admitted by the Court are accordingly hereby withdrawn. Plaintiffs are hereby granted leave to tender their proposed responses to said discovery instead. Plaintiff’s application is hereby granted subject to Defendant being granted leave to file an attorney fee motion in respect of Defendant’s pending motion for summary judgement. (Civ. Proc. Code § 2033.300 (c); Rhule v. WaveFront Tech., Inc., (2017) 8 Cal. App. 5th 1223). Furthermore, any discovery responses that remain outstanding on Plaintiff’s part shall be submitted to Defendant’s within fourteen 14 days of the date of this order. b) MOOT. In view of the Court’s ruling granting Plaintiffs relief from deemed admissions and granting them leave to file their proposed responses to Defendant’s Request for Admissions, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgement, which is founded on said deemed admissions, is hereby rendered moot. Furthermore, the 30-day “cut-off” under CCP § 437c is measured from the trial date in effect when the summary judgment motion is made. Thus, a continuance of the initial trial date “reopens” the time for such motions. (Green v. Bristol Myers Co. (1988) 206 Cal.3d 604, 609; Soderberg v. McKinney (1996) 44 Cal.4th 1760, 1765; Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 10-C) THE COURT’S PHONE SYSTEM MAY BE DOWN. If you desire a hearing, you must email your request to civil.tentatives@stanct.org before 4:00 p.m. today. In addition, your email must list the email addresses of all counsel who will appear at the hearing. Please refer to the Stanislaus Superior Court website for call-in instructions for the hearing. If VCourt is unavailable the website will post Zoom Meeting credentials for Dept. 24. The hearing will proceed via Zoom if VCourt is still unavailable.

Case Number: 23STCV14641 Hearing Date: August 1, 2024 Dept: 20 Tentative Ruling Judge Kevin C. Brazile Department 20 Hearing Date: August 1, 2024 Case Name: H Wood Apartments, LLC, et al. v. Luxurban Hotels, Inc., et al. Case No.: 23STCV14641 Matter: Motion for Assignment Order Moving Party: Plaintiffs H Wood Apartments, LLC and SevenWest Responding Party: Unopposed Notice: OK Ruling: The Motion is granted. Judgment Creditors to give notice. If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On June 10, 2024, the Court entered a stipulated judgment that required Defendant LuxUrban Hotels, Inc. to ultimately pay $318,000 to Plaintiffs H Wood Apartments, LLC and SevenWest. Plaintiffs H Wood Apartments, LLC and SevenWest now seek an order instructing Judgment Debtor LuxUrban Hotels, Inc. . . . to assign its interest in any money and/or assets held by Roth Capital Partners, LLC, and all rights to payment thereunder, to Judgment Creditors to the extent necessary to pay Judgment Creditors judgment in full, including accrued interest through the date of payment. An assignment order is a court order assigning to the judgment creditor or a receiver appointed pursuant to CCP § 708.610 et seq. [ ] the debtor's right to payments due from a third person. It is authorized by CCP § 708.510 et seq. [CCP § 708.510(a); see Landstar Global Logistics, Inc. v. Robinson & Robinson, Inc. (2013) 216 CA4th 378, 390, 156 CR3d 687, 697statutory provisions re assignment orders are subject to strict construction]. (Ahart, Cal. Prac. Guide Enf. J. & Debt (2021) Ch. 6G-5.) All or part of a right to payment due, or to become due, may be ordered assigned whether or not such right is conditioned upon future developments. [CCP § 708.510(a)]. ( Ibid .) The court has broad discretion in determining whether to order an assignment, and in fixing the amount to be assigned. ( Ibid .) The court may consider all relevant factors, including but not limited to: the reasonable economic needs of a natural person judgment debtor and those supported partly or wholly by the debtor; payments the judgment debtor is required to make or that are deducted in satisfaction of other judgments and wage assignments; the amount remaining due on the money judgment; and the amount remaining to be received on the right to payment. (Code Civ. Proc. § 708.510(c).) Because there is no opposition, the Motion is granted. (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4 th 1403, 1410.) Judgment Creditors to give notice. If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

On the court’s own motion, the Plaintiff's (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Sanctions and (2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions are CONTINUED to August 1, 2024 at 9:00 am in Dept. 10B. No further briefing allowed. Blanca A. Bañuelos Judge of the Superior Court of California

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Monday, July 22, 2024, Line 5. 2 - DEFENDANT NUNUNG SUGIYANTI's DEMURRER to 1ST Amended COMPLAINT. Transferred to be heard in department 501 on July 30, 2024. That department handles all wrongful eviction cases per SF Local Rule 8.10A1. =(302/CK)

Case Number: 22STCV08879 Hearing Date: July 31, 2024 Dept: 20 Tentative Ruling Judge Kevin C. Brazile Department 20 Hearing Date: July 31, 2024 Case Name: Young, et al. v. Pacific Plaza Elite-Alhambra Homeowners Association, et al. Case No.: 22STCV08879 Matter: Motions to Compel Further Responses (4x) Moving Party: Plaintiffs Irene Young and Jesse Chang Responding Party: Defendant Pacific Plaza Elite-Alhambra Homeowners Association Notice: OK Ruling: The Motion as to Requests for Production is granted in part. The Motions as to Form Interrogatories and Request for Admission are granted. Moving parties to give notice. If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs Irene Young and Jesse Chang seek to compel further responses from Defendant Pacific Plaza Elite-Alhambra Homeowners Association as to their requests for production, set two, form interrogatories, set two, request for admission no. 15. Request for Admission Request for Admission no. 15 states, Admit that YOU have not repaired the defects that were the subject of the CONSTRUCTION DEFECT DISPUTE. Previously, Defendant responded: After a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter contained in this request, admit in part and deny in part. The Court compelled a further response because there was no specificity as to what was admitted and denied. Defendant then served the following amended response that is the subject of the current Motion: After a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter contained in this request, to the best of Responding Partys knowledge, the Developer has completed the repairs to Plaintiffs property and therefore responds: Deny. Plaintiffs argue that this is evasive because the request did not relate to the Developer, who is never identified in the response anyway. They also contend that it is unclear whether the phrase Plaintiffs property relates to Plaintiffs unit or the entire condominium building that was the subject of the CONSTRUCTION DEFECT DISPUTE. The Motion to Compel is granted. A further response should be provided in 10 days that (a) admits that Defendant itself did not do the repairs at issue, but (b) denies that the repairs were never done, because the developer, Pacific Plaza Investments, LLC, addressed them. This would seem to better embody a response that complies with CCP § 2033.220. The Court declines to award sanctions. Form Interrogatories (2x) The next Motions pertain to form interrogatory no. 17.1 as it relates to requests for admission nos. 7 and 15. Given that the Court has required a further response for RFA no. 15, a further accompanying response should also be provided for FI no. 17.1. With respect to request no. 7, the response for form interrogatory no. 17.1 is deficient. No facts or documents are specifically identified and no contact information is provided for Partners Community Management. Thus, the Motions to Compel are grantedfurther responses are required within 30 days. The Court awards reduced sanctions to Plaintiffs in the amount of $750. Requests for Production With respect to the requests for production, Defendant contends that supplemental documents were served such that the Motion is moot. Defendant, however, never addresses its actual responses. The Motion is granted as to request nos. 1-7, 9-12, 15-22 because the non-privilege objections lack merit and Defendant should provide updated responses in which documents are identified with Bates numbers. For its privilege log, Defendant should indicate recipients and authors. With respect to request nos. 8, 13, 14, 24, and 25, Defendant should provide a response that complies with Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230. The Motion is denied without prejudice as to request no. 23, which seems to target predominantly privileged matters. Further responses are to be provided within 30 days. The Court awards Plaintiffs reduced sanctions in the amount of $750. Moving parties to give notice. If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.