We are checking for the latest updates in this case. We will email you when the process is complete.

Community 1St Credit Union V Joel L. Davis

Case Last Refreshed: 4 months ago

Community 1St Credit Union, Ncb Management Services, Inc, Perry April, filed a(n) Breach of Contract - Commercial case represented by Pettengill, Michael Wayne, Simplot, Heather Michelle, against Davis Joel L., Woods James, Woods Traci, in the jurisdiction of Wapello County. This case was filed in Wapello County Superior Courts District.

Case Details for Community 1St Credit Union v. Davis Joel L. , et al.

Filing Date

March 15, 2024

Category

Contract - Debt Collection

Last Refreshed

March 18, 2024

Practice Area

Commercial

Filing Location

Wapello County, IA

Matter Type

Breach of Contract

Filing Court House

District

Parties for Community 1St Credit Union v. Davis Joel L. , et al.

Plaintiffs

Community 1St Credit Union

Ncb Management Services, Inc

Perry April

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Pettengill, Michael Wayne

Simplot, Heather Michelle

Defendants

Davis Joel L.

Woods James

Woods Traci

Other Parties

Binder, Janice B (Attorney)

Case Events for Community 1St Credit Union v. Davis Joel L. , et al.

Type Description
Docket Event OTHER AFFIDAVIT
PURSUANT TO IOWA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.972(1)
Docket Event PETITION FILED
FOR MONEY JUDGMENT
Docket Event AFF OF SOLDIER AND SAILOR RELIEF
Docket Event CIVIL ORIGINAL NOTICE
Docket Event PETITION FILED
Docket Event VERIFICATION OF ACCOUNT
TRACI WOODS
Docket Event VERIFICATION OF ACCOUNT
JAMES WOODS
Docket Event PROTECTED INFORMATION FORM
Docket Event PETITION FILED - NAME CHANGE
See all events

Related Content in Wapello County

Case

NAME CHANGE OF JANET WRIGHT
Jul 18, 2024 | Change of Name | Change of Name | 08901 CNEQ114223

Case

NAME CHANGE OF GLENDA CLOKE
Jul 15, 2024 | Change of Name | Change of Name | 08901 CNEQ114219

Case

CANIUS, DARLEY MARCKING VS TERTULIEN, WESTER
Jul 17, 2024 | Domestic Abuse | Domestic Abuse | 08901 DAEQ114221

Case

IN THE MATTER OF NAME CHANGE OF E.Y.L.R.M.
Jul 11, 2024 | Change of Name | Change of Name | 08901 CNEQ114215

Case

RUPE, EMILY VS MERCHANT, JUSTIN
May 08, 2024 | Domestic Abuse | Domestic Abuse | 08901 DAEQ114220

Case

SHELBY CUNDIFF V KAIDEN SHERWOOD
Jul 12, 2024 | Domestic Abuse | Domestic Abuse | 08901 DAEQ114214

Case

GREENSTATE CREDIT UNION V DANIEL, BRIAN
Jul 17, 2024 | CONTRACT - DEBT COLLECTION | CONTRACT - DEBT COLLECTION | 08901 LALA106771

Case

NAME CHANGE OF TMA
Jul 12, 2024 | Change of Name | Change of Name | 08901 CNEQ114216

Case

DISCOVER BANK V. SHANE SMITH
May 28, 2024 | ROSENBERG SCOTT D | CONTRACT - DEBT COLLECTION | CONTRACT - DEBT COLLECTION | 08901 LALA106767

Ruling

SCOTT MAINES VS. 2195 GREEN STREET CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, A ET AL
Jul 15, 2024 | CGC24611939
Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 15, 2024 line 4. DEFENDANT PAMELA WIGET , AN INDIVDUAL Notice Of Motion And Motion To Motion To Expunge Lis Pendens And For Statutory Legal Costs is granted in part. The lis pendens is expunged. Plaintiff Scott Maines failed to allege and show that he has a reasonable probability of proving a real property claim against Ms. Wiget. Ms. Wiget is awarded reasonable fees and costs of $8,301.40, consisting of 20 hours of reasonable attorney time at the reasonable rate of $400 per hour plus $301.50 in costs. =(501/HEK) 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.

Ruling

JAMJOUM vs AFC CAL, LLC, et al.
Jul 16, 2024 | Civil Unlimited (Fraud (no contract)) | 22CV006750
22CV006750: JAMJOUM vs AFC CAL, LLC, et al. 07/16/2024 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5) filed by Vahid Farahani (Defendant) in Department 20 Tentative Ruling - 07/15/2024 Karin Schwartz The Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default filed by Vahid Farahani on 05/30/2024 is Granted. Defendant Farahani’s (Farahani) California Civil Code (CCP) § 473.5 Motion to Set Aside Default and for Leave to Defend is GRANTED based on the evidence that he did not receive actual notice in time to defend against the action. The Court does not reach the alternative grounds set forth in Farahani’s motion. FACTS On February 9, 2022, Plaintiff Numan Saleh Jamjoum (Jamjoum) filed the present lawsuit. The Proof of Service in the Court’s file, of which the Court takes judicial notice, purports to reflect “substitute service” on a “Jane Doe” at Cherry Street address in Visalia on or about March 17, 2022 by a registered process server. The Request for Entry of Default, filed on or about July 14, 2023, of which the Court takes judicial notice, reflects service by first class mail on Farahani at the Cherry Street address by Plaintiff himself. Farahani submitted a declaration asserting, inter alia, that he has never lived at the Cherry Street address, which is the address for his sister. (Farahani Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.) Farahani’s sister forwarded the summons to Farahani, but he does not remember receiving the complaint, or notice of the case management conference, among other documents. (Farahani Decl., ¶ 6.) Farahani thought the dispute concerned his previous employer. (Farahani Decl., ¶ 7.) Farahani made some efforts, including going to the Hayward courthouse, to learn more about the case, but ultimately concluded that he did not need to take action to avoid jeopardy. (Farahani Decl., ¶¶ 8- 9.) He did not receive notice that default had been entered against him. (Farahani Decl., ¶ 11.) However, when he continued to receive notices about the case, he consulted an attorney, leading to the present motion. (Farahani Decl., ¶ 12). ANALYSIS Default must be set aside where when service of summons has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to defend the action. (CCP § 473.5.) Actual notice requires the “genuine knowledge of the party litigant.” (Rosenthal v. Garner (1983) 142 Cal. App. 3d 891, 895.) Farhani’s declaration establishes an entitlement to relief under CCP § 473.5. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED and the default shall be set aside. Farhani shall file his response to the complaint within 10 days of this order. The Court is setting a Case Management Conference at the date and time below. The prove-up hearing is vacated. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 22CV006750: JAMJOUM vs AFC CAL, LLC, et al. 07/16/2024 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5) filed by Vahid Farahani (Defendant) in Department 20 The Default Prove Up Hearing scheduled for 07/23/2024 is vacated . Case Management Conference is scheduled for 09/12/2024 at 3:00 PM in Department 20 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse. Updated Case Management Statements must be filed in compliance with Rule of Court 3.725 on Judicial Council Form CM-110. Unless ordered otherwise, remote appearances by Zoom (videoconference) are permitted for all law and motion, case management hearings, and pretrial hearings in Dept. 20. Trials are held in person unless all parties agree to be remote.

Ruling

WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS ET AL VS. EMPORIUM MALL LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILTY ET AL
Jul 15, 2024 | CGC23609424
Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 15, 2024 line 12. DEFENDANT EMPORIUM MALL LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILTY COMPANY, S.F. CENTRE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A DELAWARE Motion Of Defendants Emporium Mall Llc And S.F. Centre Limited Partnership For Order Staying Litigation; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities is denied. Defendants assertion that the "purpose" of the stay is to benefit the Receiver is belied by the Receiver's response to this motion. Moreover, the primary authority relied on by the defendants for their extraordinary request to stay another case is the final order appointing the Receiver that order states that the Receiver (not any other party) "may ... seek a blanket stay" of other lawsuits. While any judge of the San Francisco Superior Court has the jurisdiction to stay any case pending in this Court, staying another case should only be done where there is a clear need to do so. Defendants have not shown such a clear need. =(501/HEK) 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.

Ruling

London vs Citibank, N.A.
Jul 17, 2024 | SCV-259837
SCV-259837, London v. Citibank, N.A. The parties are ORDERED TO APPEAR.

Ruling

WHITTED vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC
Jul 16, 2024 | CVRI2305542
Motion to Compel Further Responses to WHITTED vs GENERAL Plaintiff's Requests for Production of CVRI2305542 MOTORS, LLC Documents Set One by MARIANA JESUS WHITTED Tentative Ruling: Factual / Procedural Context: This is a lemon law case. Plaintiff Mariana Jesus Whitted alleges that on March 19, 2021, she purchased a 2021 GMC Arcadia, manufactured and/or distributed by defendant General Motors, LLC. Plaintiff alleges that serious defects and nonconformities to warranty manifested within the applicable warranty period, which Defendant’s authorized facility was unable to repair. The alleged defects relate to the engine, transmission, electrical system, and infotainment system. On October 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed the complaint, alleging various claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act: (1) violation of Civ. Code § 1793.2(d); (2) violation of Civ. Code § 1793.2(b); (3) violation of Civ. Code § 1793.2(a)(3); and (4) breach of implied warranty (Civ. Code § 1791.1). On January 8, 2024, Plaintiff served the first set of requests for production of documents (“RFPs”) to which Defendant provided verified responses. Plaintiff contends the responses remain deficient despite meet and confer efforts, and now moves to compel further responses to RFP nos. 1-3, 7, 8, 15-20, 27, 28, 37, 38, 49, 50, 67-70, 78-79, 84, 86, 88, 97, 111-116, arguing the documents sought are highly relevant and Defendant’s objections meritless. Plaintiff also seeks sanctions in the amount of $3,000. Defendant opposes, arguing that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently meet and confer, Defendant produced further documents and/or agreed to produce further documents, and Defendant’s objections have merit. In the Replies, Plaintiff reiterates her moving arguments. Analysis: Where responses to document requests have been timely served but are deemed deficient by the requesting party (e.g., the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general), that party may file a motion compelling further responses. (CCP § 2031.310.) The motion must be served within 45 days after service of a verified response (CCP § 1010.6(a)(4)) and must be accompanied by a declaration showing “a reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the issues informally outside of court. (CCP § 2016.040, 2031.310(b)(2).) The motion to compel further responses “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (CCP § 2031.310(b)(1); Kirkland v. Superior Court (Guess? Inc.) (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) To establish “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Penn.) (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Once good cause is established, the responding party has the burden to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (Kirkland, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at 98.) Here, Plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer prior to filing the motion. Whether a “reasonable and good faith attempt” was made requires an “evaluation of whether, from the perspective of a reasonable person in the position of the discovering party, additional effort appears likely to bear fruit.” (Clement v. Alegra (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.) Although some effort is required in all instances, the level of effort that is reasonable is different in different circumstances, and may vary with the prospects for success. (Id.) In this case, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter on January 8, 2024 simultaneously with the document requests, before Defendant even had a chance to review much less respond to the requests. (Declaration of Nino Sanaia, Exs. 8, 10.) Defendant responded by letter on January 16, 2024, rightfully stating the meet and confer letter was premature but agreeing to have discussions regarding ESI discovery after responses have been provided. (Id., Ex. 11.) Defendant provided responses on February 6, 2024 with verifications on March 5, 2024. (Id., Ex. 9.) In response, on March 20, 2024, Plaintiff sent a boilerplate 29-page meet and confer form letter - not tailored to Defendant’s actual responses - explaining the relevance of all 131 document requests, demanding Defendant withdraw all of its objections and supplement its previous production. (Id., Ex. 12.) There is some evidence that the letter is merely a cut-and-paste job. Specifically, Plaintiff’s extensive discussion on the relevance of the documents to her fraud claim appears misplaced as, Plaintiff did not allege fraud in this case. (Id., at pp. 15-17.) Moreover, Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendant supplemented its document production on April 16, 2024. (Declaration of Ryan Kay, ¶ 6.) Plaintiff did not attempt to further meet and confer after this production. The 2- sentence email sent by Plaintiff on April 23, 2024, simultaneously with the filing of this motion, does not address Defendant’s supplemental production and does not support a finding of a good faith effort to meet and confer. Primarily at issue is whether Plaintiff is entitled to documents and information evidencing i) Defendant’s internal knowledge and investigation regarding “Engine Defects” and “MyLink Defects” in GMC Acadia vehicles; ii) policies and procedures for handling customer complaints and repurchase requests under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“SBA”); and iii) documents concerning communications with governmental agencies (e.g., the NHTSA and EPA) and suppliers regarding the “Engine Defects” and “MyLink Defects” in GMC Acadia vehicles. These are similar to the discovery issues at issue in most lemon law cases. Plaintiff also complains that responses related to Plaintiff’s vehicle are not code-compliant. The matter is continued, the parties are ordered to meet and confer. Additionally, the court offers these further suggestion as to the meet and confer process: To help the parties in their meet and confer efforts, the Court notes that the following documents are generally discoverable by an SBA plaintiff: • Defendant’s communications with dealer, factory representative and/or call center concerning the subject vehicle. • Warranty policies and claim-handling procedures published by Defendant and provided to its authorized repair facilities, within the State of California, for the period of the date of purchase to the date the lawsuit was filed. • Defendant’s internal analysis or investigation regarding defects alleged in plaintiff’s complaint in vehicles for the same year, make and model of the subject vehicle, including recall notices and technical service bulletins. The Court preliminarily notes that Plaintiff’s definition of “Engine Defects” and “MyLink Defects” in the RFPs do not appear to match the defects allegedly experienced by Plaintiff in the subject vehicle (Sanaia Dec., ¶¶ 6-12), and the requests are not limited to vehicles of the same year as Plaintiff’s vehicle. • Documents evidencing policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for repurchase pursuant to the SBA for the period of the date of purchase to the date the lawsuit was filed. Furthermore, considering the nature of this dispute, the Court is inclined to limit ESI discovery by balancing Plaintiff’s showing of good cause and Defendant’s showing of undue burden. (See CCP § 2031.310(g)(4); Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (Thiem Indus., Inc.)(1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223.) The parties shall meet and confer regarding appropriate search terms. The parties are to meet and confer meaningfully in person, by telephone or by videoconference within 10 days of this order. At least 7 days prior to the next hearing date, the moving party is to file a declaration describing the meet and confer process and identifying any remaining issues. The motion to compel is rescheduled to September 16, 2024 in D5 at 8:30 AM. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Ruling

WILSHIRE QUINN INCOME FUND REIT, LLC VS MARINE A. SARKISIAN, ET AL.
Jul 16, 2024 | 11/28/2022 | 23SMCV02418
Case Number: 23SMCV02418 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: N TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff Wilshire Quinn Income Fund Reit, LLCs Motion to Compel Defendant Victor Lossis Compliance with the Courts Order, or Alternatively, for Terminating Sanctions, and Request for Sanctions Against Defendant for Failure to Comply with Court Order is DENIED. Plaintiff Wilshire Quinn Income Fund Reit, LLC to give notice. REASONING Plaintiff Wilshire Quinn Income Fund Reit, LLC (Plaintiff) moves the Court for an order compelling Defendant Victor Lossi (Lossi) to comply with the Courts order dated February 29, 2024, which granted Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Defendant Victor Lossis Verified and Objection-Free Responses to Its Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and ordered Lossi to serve responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, without objections, within 30 days of entry of the Courts order, and order Lossi and defense counsel to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,320 to Plaintiff and Plaintiffs counsel within 30 days of entry of the Courts order. In alternative, Plaintiff seeks terminating sanctions against Lossi, striking his answer and entering default judgment against Lossi. Put simply, the Court cannot issue an order compelling a party to compel with a court order, as it has already done so in issuing the prior order in the first place. As to whether terminating sanctions are proper, if a party engages in the misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose sanctions including terminating, evidence, and monetary sanctions. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (g).) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery also constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) The trial court has broad discretion in selecting discovery sanctions, subject to reversal only for abuse. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992 (Doppes).) [T]wo facts are absolutely prerequisite to imposition of the sanction: (1) there must be a failure to comply and (2) the failure must be willful. (Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. LcL Admrs, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1102, ellipsis omitted.) A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction. (Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 992.) While Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Courts prior order, the Court finds that terminating sanctions are not warranted at this juncture. Terminating sanctions are a drastic remedy that the Court is not prepared to impose, particularly where Plaintiff moved for terminating sanctions just over a week after responses were due pursuant to the Courts order. The California discovery statutes provide an incremental approach to discovery sanctions (Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 992), such that it would be improper for the Court to jump from an order entering an order compelling discovery responses to an order for terminating sanctions, as Plaintiff asks the Court to do, because this does not represent the incremental approach contemplated by California law. Put simply, less severe sanctions [may] produce compliance with the discovery rules, and until the Court has imposed incrementally harsher sanctions to curb Plaintiffs failure to provide discovery responses, the Court declines to impose the ultimate sanction of termination. (See Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 992.) The Court will also not impose additional monetary sanctions, as the Court has already awarded sanctions in the prior order, and it is not inclined to double its award based on the same discovery. Accordingly, Plaintiff Wilshire Quinn Income Fund Reit, LLCs Motion to Compel Defendant Victor Lossis Compliance with the Courts Order, or Alternatively, for Terminating Sanctions, and Request for Sanctions Against Defendant for Failure to Comply with Court Order is DENIED.

Ruling

PURUSHOTTAM PATEL, ET AL. VS ADP PAYROLL SERVICES, INC., ET AL.
Jul 16, 2024 | 19STCV45113
Case Number: 19STCV45113 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: 78 Superior Court of California ¿ County of Los Angeles ¿ Department 78 ¿ ¿ PURUSHOTTAM PATEL , Plaintiff (s) , vs. PAYROLL SERVICES, INC. , et al., Defendant ( s ) . Case No.:¿ 19STCV45113 Hearing Date:¿ July 1 6 , 2024 [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION Plaintiff Purushottam Patel (Plaintiff) filed a Fifth Amended Complaint against defendants Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Travelers Property Casualty Agency, Auto Data Processing, Inc., ADP Payroll Services, Inc., Automatic Data Processing Insurance Agency, Inc., Automatic Data Processing, Inc., ADP, Inc. and Does 1 to 1000 breach of contract arising from the cancellation from an insurance policy. On January 12, 2024, trial was continued to May 6, 2024, subject to the following : All discovery and motion cutoff dates remain based on the 3/18/2024 trial date except as follows the cutoff dates for which shall be based on the new trial date: (1) expert discovery; (2) motions regarding expert discovery; (3) fact discovery based upon information learned as a result of discovery obtained through timely filed motions to compel based on the 3/18/2024 trial date; (4) motions to compel discovery related to items covered by #3; and (5) motions in limine . (Min. Order, Jan. 12, 2024.) On March 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the deposition of the Person Most Qualified (PMQ) of Automatic Data Processing Insurance Agency, Inc . and filed an application ex parte on April 2, 2024 to shorten time to advance the hearing date. On April 4, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiffs ex parte application , while also noting that Plaintiffs motions to compel filed on March 26, 2024 were not timely filed per the January 12, 2024 Order. (Min. Order, April 4, 2024.) Defendants ADP, Inc. f/k/a ADP, LLC and Automatic Data Processing Insurance Agency, Inc . s joint opposition provide that their counsel called Plaintiffs counsel requesting the motions be taken off-calendar, and that Plaintiffs counsel stated he would look into it . (Rojas Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff has not taken the instant motion off-calendar. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs motion to compel deposition and production of documents is DENIED . The Court further notes that aside from the instant motion, there are two other motions to compel set for July 18, 2024 and July 22, 2024. Plaintiff is to review the Courts prior orders, and to promptly take these motions off-calendar , unless it falls within one of the specific exceptions outlined in the January 12, 2024 Order . Moving Party is ordered to give notice . DATED: July 1 5 , 2024 __________________________ Hon. Michelle C. Kim Judge of the Superior Court PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: " Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. " If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at SMCDEPT78@lacourt.org with the Subject line SUBMIT followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsels contact information, and the identity of the party submitting . " Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. " If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.

Ruling

SKYLAR WENZEL, ET AL. VS CAROLWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION, ET AL.
Jul 17, 2024 | 23STCV07767
Case Number: 23STCV07767 Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 Dept: 57 Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to consolidate for all purposes this action with Wenzel v. First to Respond Restoration, 23STCV31847, is granted. The Court will discuss with the parties the rescheduling of the demurrer and case management conference in the First to Respond Restoration action that was set for August 5, 2024. The Court also will discuss what consolidation means for the trial date that is scheduled in the lead action.

Document

Bank of America, N.A. vs Stacie Butler
Aug 09, 2023 | Voyles, Gregory A. | Contract/Account* | 2023CV1355

Document

Amirian, Inna vs. Derek P. Carr Doing Business as Derek P. Carr Pool and Home Services
Jul 11, 2024 | Contract / Business Cases | Other Contract Action | 2481CV01816

Document

WESTLAKE SERVICES LLC vs DURDEN et al
Jun 19, 2024 | Cope, Veronica | Contract/Account* | Contract/Account* | 24-C-05539-S6

Document

VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC vs HENRY
Jul 11, 2024 | Cope, Veronica | Contract/Account* | Contract/Account* | 24-C-06235-S6

Document

US BANK NATIONAL ASSN V NANCY C HAVENS
Jul 11, 2024 | 17TH CIRCUIT DIVISION 1 | CONTRACT - OTHER | CONTRACT - OTHER | 73CV-24-648

Document

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY VS CINDY SYNDER
Jul 12, 2024 | 19TH STATE DISTRICT COURT DIV 2 | CV-CONTRACT | CV-CONTRACT | JOCV-24-216

Document

Discover Bank vs Grace E Stuhr
Jul 12, 2024 | McPherson, Catherine | Contract | Contract | 86-CV-24-3699

Document

AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs ZBURLEA
Jun 26, 2024 | Cope, Veronica | Contract/Account* | Contract/Account* | 24-C-05832-S6