Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Vs. Heidi Walker

Case Number: 19NWCV00849 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: C FC Marketplace, LLC vs HKS Food Inc., et al Case No.: 19NWCV00849 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 @ 9:30 a.m. #1 Tentative Ruling Plaintiff FC Marketplaces unopposed motion to enforce settlement and for entry of judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff to give notice. Background This lawsuit involves a loan made by Plaintiff FC Marketplace, LLC (Plaintiff) to Defendants HKS Food Inc. (HKS) and David Park as Guarantor (Park) (collectively Defendants). The operative Complaint, filed on November 6, 2019, brings causes of action for: (1) Open Book Account; (2) Account Stated; (3) Reasonable Value of Goods/Services Received/Funds Provided; (4) Agreement; (5) Promissory Note; (6) Personal Guarantee; and (7) Unjust Enrichment. On January 14, 2022, the parties entered into a stipulated judgment which provides in relevant part: · A one-time payment of $30,000.00 on February 10, 2022 · Monthly payments of $1,445.62 from March 10, 2022 to January 10, 2027. · If any payment is not made timely, this stipulation will be treated as being in default. Upon default, Plaintiff shall give written notice of the default by email to Frederick Lee, esq. Defendant has ten (10) days from the date written notice was given to cure any said default. If the default is not cured after 10 days, Plaintiff is entitled to enter judgment in the amount of $147,983.57 minus any payments made by the Defendant, and may thereafter enforce said judgment for the full balance due. · The Court will retain jurisdiction of the action until the judgment is fully complied with or until further order of the Court. Plaintiff moves to enforce settlement pursuant to CCP § 664.6 based upon Defendants failure to make payments under the agreement. As of July 12, 2024, the motion is unopposed. Legal Standard If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.) In hearing a section 664.6 motion, the trial court may receive evidence, determine disputed facts, and enter terms of a settlement agreement as a judgment. ( Bowers v. Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 724, 732.) The court may interpret the terms and conditions to settlement ( Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566), but the court may not create 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.) Strict compliance with the statutory requirements is necessary before a court can enforce a settlement agreement under this statute. ( Sully-Miller Contracting Co. v. Gledson/Cashman Construction, Inc. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 30, 37.) The party seeking to enforce a settlement must first establish the agreement at issue was set forth in a writing signed by the parties (§ 664.6) or was made orally before the court. [Citation.] ( Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 304 [holding that a letter confirming the essential terms of a settlement agreement was not a writing signed by the parties sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 664.6].) Discussion Plaintiff contends that Defendants have failed to comply with specific provisions of the settlement agreement that require them to make monthly payments of $1,445.62. Plaintiff contends that Defendants failed to make the September 10, 2022 payment. They also failed to pay within 10 days of receiving notice of late payment. The Court finds that Defendants have breached the terms of the Stipulated Judgment by failing to make the requisite monthly payments. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion to enforce settlement pursuant to C.C.P § 664.6 is GRANTED. Judgment is to be entered against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $147,983.57, less any payments made by Defendants.

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.

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 ******************************************************************************************

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 ******************************************************************************************

SIERRA CENTRAL CREDIT UNION VS. BOWEN Case Number: 23CVG-00603 This matter is on calendar for confirmation of Judgment. The Court’s June 5, 2024 Ruling after trial ordered Defendant to submit a proposed judgment for the Court’s signature. No proposed judgment has been filed. No status report has been filed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Friday, July 12, 2024, Line 14. DEFENDANT JASON JONES' Motion To Deem Facts Admitted. Continued to July 26, 2024, to be heard on the court's discovery calendar at 9:00 a.m. =(302/RCE)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling 201700491367CUOR: Sherwood Valley HOA vs New Mission 06/25/2024 in Department 21 Motion to Amend Judgment to Add Additional Judgment Debtors on Alter Ego Theory Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 187 The morning calendar in courtroom 21 will normally begin between 8:30 and 8:45 a.m. Please arrive at the courtroom no later than 8:30 a.m. The door will be opened before the calendar is called. The Court allows appearances by CourtCall but is not equipped for Zoom. If appearing by CourtCall, call in no later than 8:15 a.m. If you intend to appear by CourtCall, you must make arrangements with CourtCall by 4:00 p.m. the day before your scheduled hearing. Requests for approval of a CourtCall appearance made on the morning of the hearing will not be granted. No exceptions will be made. With respect to the tentative ruling below, no notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling you can fax notice to Judge Riley's secretary, Ms. Sedillos at 805-289-8705, stating that you submit on the tentative. You may also email the Court at: Courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov with all counsel copied on the email. Do not call in lieu of sending a fax or email. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. If you are the moving party and do not communicate to the Court that you submit on the tentative or you do not appear at the hearing, the Court may deny your motion irrespective of the tentative. Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized. Tentative Ruling The Court will CONTINUE the hearing on Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Sherwood Valley Homeowners Association’s motion to amend the judgment in this action to add Amy Levan and Japanese Apple Blossom LLC as additional judgment debtors to July 11, 2024, to be heard after third party Amy Levan’s motion to quash service of the motion. Analysis On June 11, 2024, Amy Levan filed opposition papers to the Association’s motion to amend the judgment. On the same date, she filed a motion to quash service of the Association’s motion to amend the Judgment on Levan, on the ground that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Levan because the service of the Association’s motion on her was deficient. Levan’s motion to quash service is presently set for hearing on July 9, 2024. 201700491367CUOR: Sherwood Valley HOA vs New Mission Because Levan’s motion to quash raises a fundamental question as to whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over Levan for the purposes of ruling on the Association’s motion to add her as an additional judgment debtor, the Court will rule on the motion to quash prior to ruling on the Association’s motion. (See, e.g., In re Marriage of Obrecht (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1, 17 [noting “the California rule…that an objection to personal jurisdiction must be finally determined…before the defendant can litigate any defense on the merits.”].) Accordingly, the Court cannot and should not hear the Association’s motion to add additional judgment debtors prior to hearing Levan’s motion to quash.

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.