Related Content
in Broward County
Ruling
JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. vs. Cooper, Jay B.
Jul 29, 2024 |
S-CV-0052459
S-CV-0052459 JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. vs. Cooper, Jay B.
No appearance required. CMC is continued to 10/21/24 at 2pm in Dept. 6.
Default packet received, but not yet reviewed.
Ruling
Truist Bank vs. Stock, et al.
Jul 15, 2024 |
23CV-0203124
TRUIST BANK VS. STOCK, ET AL.
Case Number: 23CV-0203124
Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions issued on
May 28, 2024 to Plaintiff Truist Bank and counsel, Gurstel Law Firm, P.C., for failure to timely serve pleadings
on Defendant Chris Stock pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(b) and Local Rule of Court 3.03 and
failure to timely seek default on Defendant Bright Nichols Stock pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule
3.110(g). “The complaint must be served on all named defendants and proofs of service on those defendants must
be filed with the court within 60 days after the filing of the complaint.” CRC 3.110(b). Local Rule 3.03 mandates
that Plaintiff serve Defendant with Local Form LF-CIV-100 and file a proof of service within the same timeframe.
The Complaint in this matter was filed on September 1, 2023 and no proof of service has been filed for defendant
Chris Stock. Plaintiff did not address defendant Chris Stock in the written response to the Order to Show Cause.
CRC 3.110(g) requires Plaintiff to file a request for entry of default within 10 days after the time for service of
the responsive pleading has elapsed. Defendant Bright Nichols Stock was served on October 7, 2023. The time
for filing a responsive pleading expired November 6, 2023. No extension was requested or granted. No default
was requested.
On July 2, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Declaration that asserts that a default packet “is pending to be drafted.”
No explanation is given for the noncompliance with CRC 3.110. No default judgment has been requested.
With no sufficient excuse for the delay, sanctions are imposed in the amount of $250.00 against Plaintiff and
Plaintiff’s Counsel. The clerk is instructed to prepare a separate Order of Sanctions. The Court will issue an
Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal pursuant to Gov’t Code Section 68608(b) for Plaintiff’s failure to timely
serve the complaint and LF-CIV-100, failure to timely seek default judgment, and failure to timely prosecute.
The hearing on the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal is set for Monday, September 9, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in
Department 63. The clerk is instructed to prepare a separate Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal. This matter
is also calendared on Monday, September 9, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 63 for review regarding status
of service.
******************************************************************************************
9:00 a.m. – Review Hearings
******************************************************************************************
Ruling
ALLY BANK LEASE TRUST, A CORPORATION VS ANTONIO V. WHITE, ET AL.
Jul 22, 2024 |
24VECV01449
Case Number:
24VECV01449
Hearing Date:
July 22, 2024
Dept:
T
[TENTATIVE] ORDER: Plaintiff Ally Banks Application for Writ of Possession is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Introduction
Plaintiff Ally Bank (Plaintiff) moved for a writ of possession against Defendant Antonio White (Defendant).
An opposition was due on July 9, 2024 and none was filed.
Discussion
Plaintiff failed to file proofs of service on the Summons and Complaint, as well as the Notice of Application for Writ of Possession. Without proofs of service, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Defendant. Without proofs of service, Defendant was not provided proper notice and opportunity to be heard on the application. Any orders issued without proper notice and opportunity to be heard are void.
Plaintiffs application for writ of possession is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
ALTERNATIVELY, IF PLAINTIFF FILES THE PROOFS OF SERVICE FOR THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AS WELL AS THE APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION PRIOR TO THIS HEARING DATE, THEN&.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER: Plaintiff Ally Banks Application for Writ of Possession is GRANTED. The Court waives an undertaking from Plaintiff Ally Bank.
Plaintiffs proof of service showed that Defendant was properly served with the summons and complaint and properly notified of the hearing on the application. (Code Civ. Proc. sec. 512.010.)
Plaintiff provided a declaration to show the probable validity of their claim and right to repossess the vehicle from Defendant because Plaintiff provided evidence showing: Defendants entry into the Written Lease Agreement (Lease) for the vehicle; Plaintiff assignors performance of delivery of the vehicle; Defendants breach in failing to pay; and Plaintiffs damages. (Code Civ. Proc sec. 512.040.) (James Singleton Decl. pars. 5-9.) Plaintiff further provided that the vehicle is in the custody and control of Defendant and located at Defendants residence. (Singleton Decl. par. 10.) (Code Civ. Proc. sec. 512.060.) With Defendants breach, Defendant no longer has rights to possess and further refused to surrender the vehicle. Plaintiff has shown their rights to possession.
Plaintiff submitted the amount owed on the account and the value of the vehicle. (Singleton Decl. pars. 6-7.) The evidence showed that the account balance exceeds the value of the vehicle and no equity exists for the Defendant. The Court finds that the requirement to post an undertaking is waived. (Code Civ. Proc. sec. 515.010.)
Plaintiffs application for writ of possession is GRANTED.
Ruling
JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. vs. POWELL, JEREMY
Jul 29, 2024 |
S-CV-0051880
S-CV-0051880 JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. vs. Powell, Jeremy
** NOTE: telephonic appearances are strongly encouraged
Appearance required. Complaint is not at issue - Need responsive pleading,
default or dismissal as to Defendant(s): Powell, Jeremy
Ruling
Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc., vs. Castro
Jul 19, 2024 |
23CVG-00362
CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC., VS. CASTRO
Case Number: 23CVG-00362
Tentative Ruling on Motion for Terminating Sanctions: Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. moves
for terminating sanctions by striking Defendant Vincent Castro’s answer. Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the
amount of $1,572.75 for each motion.
Procedural Defect: As a procedural matter, this motion was served both via mail and email on May 9, 2024, and
set for a hearing date of June 7, 2024. CCP § 1005(b) requires all moving papers be served 16 court days before
the hearing. This notice period is extended by five calendar days if the motion is served by mail. Id. For service
by email, the notice period is extended by two court days. CCP § 1010.6(a)(3). This timeframe is calculated by
counting backwards from the hearing date but excluding the hearing date. CCP § 12c.
Starting with the June 7, 2024, hearing date and counting backwards 16 court days (excluding the Court holiday
of May 27, 2024) then five calendar days for out of state mailing this matter should have been served by mail no
later than, May 4, 2024. For email the last day to serve the motion was April 24, 2024. The motion was served
on May 7, 2024, and was untimely under either calculation. Based on insufficient statutory notice, the motion is
denied.
Merits of Motion: Even if the motion had been timely noticed, terminating sanctions are not warranted.
Terminating sanctions are a “drastic penalty and should be used sparingly.” Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract
Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604. A terminating sanction should not generally be
imposed by the court until less severe sanctions have been attempted and were unsuccessful. Id. No justification
has been provided as to why terminating sanctions are appropriate in this context instead of lesser evidentiary or
issue sanctions. Without additional evidence, terminating sanctions would be premature.
The motion is DENIED. A proposed order was lodged with the Court which will be modified to reflect the
denial.
Review Hearing: This matter is also on calendar for review regarding trial re-setting. The Court designates this
matter as a Plan II case and intends on setting it for trial no later than October 15, 2024. An appearance is
necessary on today’s calendar to discuss available trial dates.
Ruling
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. VS. ELFIDO DE LEON
Jul 19, 2024 |
CGC24612979
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)
Ruling
Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc., vs. Castro
Jul 18, 2024 |
23CVG-00362
CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC., VS. CASTRO
Case Number: 23CVG-00362
Tentative Ruling on Motion for Terminating Sanctions: Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. moves
for terminating sanctions by striking Defendant Vincent Castro’s answer. Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the
amount of $1,572.75 for each motion.
Procedural Defect: As a procedural matter, this motion was served both via mail and email on May 9, 2024, and
set for a hearing date of June 7, 2024. CCP § 1005(b) requires all moving papers be served 16 court days before
the hearing. This notice period is extended by five calendar days if the motion is served by mail. Id. For service
by email, the notice period is extended by two court days. CCP § 1010.6(a)(3). This timeframe is calculated by
counting backwards from the hearing date but excluding the hearing date. CCP § 12c.
Starting with the June 7, 2024, hearing date and counting backwards 16 court days (excluding the Court holiday
of May 27, 2024) then five calendar days for out of state mailing this matter should have been served by mail no
later than, May 4, 2024. For email the last day to serve the motion was April 24, 2024. The motion was served
on May 7, 2024, and was untimely under either calculation. Based on insufficient statutory notice, the motion is
denied.
Merits of Motion: Even if the motion had been timely noticed, terminating sanctions are not warranted.
Terminating sanctions are a “drastic penalty and should be used sparingly.” Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract
Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604. A terminating sanction should not generally be
imposed by the court until less severe sanctions have been attempted and were unsuccessful. Id. No justification
has been provided as to why terminating sanctions are appropriate in this context instead of lesser evidentiary or
issue sanctions. Without additional evidence, terminating sanctions would be premature.
The motion is DENIED. A proposed order was lodged with the Court which will be modified to reflect the
denial.
Review Hearing: This matter is also on calendar for review regarding trial re-setting. The Court designates this
matter as a Plan II case and intends on setting it for trial no later than October 15, 2024. An appearance is
necessary on today’s calendar to discuss available trial dates.
Ruling
ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC VS. RODOLFO S CERNA ET AL
Jul 15, 2024 |
CGC23605955
Matter on the Law & Motion Calendar for Monday, July 15, 2024, Line 7. PLAINTIFF ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC , AS SERVICER FOR WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., AS ISSUER LOAN TRUSTEE FOR ONEMAIN FINANCIAL ISSUANCE TRUST 2020-2 Motion For Entry Of Judgment Pursuant To Stipulation. Plaintiff's unopposed "motion for entry of judgment pursuant to stipulation of the parties" is granted. For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. 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 prevailing party 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/RBU)
Document
PAYCARGO FINANCE LP VS LOGISTAR LLC
Jul 15, 2024 |
CA21 - Downtown Miami - Judge Miller, David C |
Contract & Indebtedness |
Contract & Indebtedness |
2024-013048-CA-01