Related Content
in Flathead County
Ruling
CITIBANK N.A. vs FUENTEZ
Jul 17, 2024 |
Frank Anthony Moschetti |
CVCO2306079
MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT ON
CVCO2306079 CITIBANK VS FUENTEZ COMPLAINT FOR COLLECTIONS BY
LORETTA T FUENTEZ
Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling will be issued.
Ruling
Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc., vs. Castro
Jul 16, 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
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
WEX INC. VS LITTLE FAT TRUCKING, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
Jul 16, 2024 |
23PSCV01387
Case Number:
23PSCV01387
Hearing Date:
July 16, 2024
Dept:
G
Plaintiff Wex Inc.s Application for Default Judgment
Respondent: NO OPPOSITION
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff Wex Inc.s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $285,786.65.
BACKGROUND
This is a collections action. From May 2022 to July 2022, Plaintiff Wex Inc. (Wex) alleges Defendant Little Fat Trucking became indebted to Wex for a fuel card account in the total amount of $237,576.05.
On May 8, 2023, Wex filed a complaint against Little Fat Trucking and Does 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) open book account and (2) account stated. On May 9, 2024, Wexs process server served Little Fat Trucking through the California Secretary of State.
On June 20, 2024, the Court entered default against Little Fat Trucking after they failed to timely file an answer. On the same day, Wex submitted the present application for default judgment.
A case management conference is set for July 16, 2024.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a default judgment after a party has filed to timely respond or appear. A party seeking judgment on the default by the court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (7) exhibits as necessary; and (8) a request for attorneys fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1800.)
ANALYSIS
Wex seeks default judgment against Little Fat Trucking in the total amount of $340,918.37, including $237,576.05 in damages, $102,386.57 in interest, and $955.75 in costs. Because the Court finds Wex submitted sufficient evidence, the court
GRANTS
their application for default judgment with the following modification: While Wex requests $102,386.57 in interest, the Court finds this amount was calculated incorrectly and deems the correct amount of awardable interest to be $47,254.85 (10% of $237,576.05 divided by 365 = $65.0893287671 per diem multiplied by 726 days (07/21/2022 07/16/2024). Accordingly, the total judgment is reduced to $285,786.65.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Wexs application for default judgment is
GRANTED
in the reduced amount of
$285,786.65 (Damages of $237,576.05 + Interest of $47,254.85 + Costs of 955.75).
Ruling
Truist Bank vs. Stock, et al.
Jul 16, 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
Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc., vs. Castro
Jul 21, 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
CAVALRY SPV I, LLC AS ASSIGNEE OF CITIBANK, N.A. vs WISE
Jul 17, 2024 |
CVPS2305706
CAVALRY SPV I, LLC AS Motion for Order to Deem Matters Admitted
CVPS2305706 ASSIGNEE OF CITIBANK, N.A. by CAVALRY SPV I, LLC AS ASSIGNEE
vs WISE OF CITIBANK, N.A.
Tentative Ruling: The unopposed Motion of Plaintiff, Cavalry SPCV I, LLC, for Order Deeming
Admissions Admitted is GRANTED. Requests for Admissions 1 through 5, inclusive, are deemed
admitted for all purposes in this litigation.
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
******************************************************************************************