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

Trailer Park After Dark Inc Vs Marvi

Case Last Refreshed: 4 months ago

Trailer Park After Dark Inc, filed a(n) Breach of Contract - Commercial case represented by Landay, John K; Roberts, Malcolm, in the jurisdiction of San Diego County. This case was filed in San Diego County Superior Courts Superior with Michael T. Smyth presiding.

Case Details for Trailer Park After Dark Inc v.

Judge

Michael T. Smyth

Filing Date

December 31, 2019

Category

Civil - Unlimited

Last Refreshed

March 16, 2024

Practice Area

Commercial

Filing Location

San Diego County, CA

Matter Type

Breach of Contract

Filing Court House

Superior

Parties for Trailer Park After Dark Inc v.

Plaintiffs

Trailer Park After Dark Inc

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Landay, John K; Roberts, Malcolm

Other Parties

(619) 230-5712 (Attorney)

(619) 988-2135 (Attorney)

Dawson, Brian C (Dawson & Ozanne 5755 Oberlin Drive 301 San Diego Ca 92121)

Dawson, Brian C (Attorney)

Landay, John K (Landay Roberts Llp 600 W Broadway 700 San Diego Ca 92101)

Landay, John K; Roberts, Malcolm (Attorney)

Majd, Farbood; Rad, Russell M. (Attorney)

Marvi, Nader (Defendant, Cross - Complainant)

Mortier, Raymond D (Attorney)

Rad, Russell M. (Attorney)

Raissadat, Ali (Plaintiff, Cross - Defendant)

Roberts, Malcolm (Landay Roberts Llp 600 W Broadway 700 San Diego Ca 92101)

Self-Represented (Attorney)

Tokyo Playground - San Diego Inc (Defendant, Cross - Complainant)

Trailer Park After Dark Inc (Plaintiff, Cross - Defendant)

Case Documents for Trailer Park After Dark Inc v.

Case initiation form printed.

Date: 2020-01-02T00:00:00

[Another document for ROA# 294]

Date: 2023-09-13T00:00:00

[Another document for ROA# 154]

Date: 2021-09-09T00:00:00

Reply filed by Marvi, Nader.

Date: 2022-10-26T00:00:00

[Another document for ROA# 83]

Date: 2020-10-13T00:00:00

Case Events for Trailer Park After Dark Inc v.

Type Description
Docket Event Minute Order
Minutes finalized for Motion Hearing (Civil) heard 03/15/2024 09:00:00 AM.
Tentative Ruling SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO HALL OF JUSTICE TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 14, 2024 EVENT DATE: 03/15/2024 EVENT TIME: 09:00:00 AM DEPT.: C-67 JUDICIAL OFFICER:Michael T. Smyth CASE N...
Docket Event Tentative Rulings
Tentative Ruling for Motion Hearing (Civil) published.
Docket Event Motion Hearing (Civil) reassigned to Smyth, Michael for 03/15/2024 at 09:00:00 AM in C-67 at Central.
Docket Event Notice of Case Reassignment SD
Case reassigned from Sturgeon,Eddie to Smyth,Michael effective 02/17/2024
Docket Event Request - Other (to Set the Case for Status Conference or Case Management Conference and/or Trial) filed by Trailer Park After Dark Inc.
Docket Event Order - Other (Order)
Order - Other (Lifting/Terminating Stay) filed by Raissadat, Ali; Trailer Park After Dark Inc.
Docket Event Minute Order
Minutes finalized for Motion Hearing (Civil) heard 09/25/2023 08:15:00 AM.
Docket Event Declaration in Opposition to filed Motion filed by Marvi, Nader.
Docket Event Opposition - Other filed by Marvi, Nader.
See all events

Related Content in San Diego County

Case

13th and Market Properties LLC vs Alexander, Larry
Jan 03, 2024 | Howard H. Shore | (L)Breach-Contract/Warranty:Breach of Contract (<$10,000) | 37-2024-00000216-CL-BC-CTL

Case

Pacific Plaza Shopping Center vs Vongtharanavuth
Jul 15, 2024 | BEHAN, WENDY M. | Civil | (U)Breach of Contract/Warranty: Breach of Contract | 24CU000835C

Case

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. vs Antonio, Kyle B
Jul 17, 2024 | BEHAN, WENDY M. | (L)Breach-Contract/Warranty:Breach of Contract (<$10,000) | 24CL001473C

Case

Diaz, Jose A. vs Kia America Inc
Jul 19, 2024 | MANGIONE, JAMES | (U)Breach of Contract/Warranty: Breach of Contract | 24CU001962C

Case

Irwin vs General Motors LLC
Jul 15, 2024 | FREESTONE, LOREN | Civil | (U)Breach of Contract/Warranty: Breach of Contract | 24CU000861C

Case

Bardav Inc vs Dunn, Tyler
May 04, 2017 | WHITNEY, RICHARD S. | (U)Breach of Contract/Warranty: Breach of Contract | 37-2017-00016311-CU-BC-CTL This is a Consolidated Lead Case. The Subordinate Cases are: 37-2018-00004335-CU-MC-CTL

Case

Caracter vs California Western School of Law
Jul 10, 2024 | LONGSTRETH, ROBERT C. | Civil | (L)Breach-Contract/Warranty:Bond/Stop Notice ($10,001-$35k) | 24CL000343C

Case

Botter vs Kia America Inc
Jul 15, 2024 | MANGIONE, JAMES | Civil | (U)Breach of Contract/Warranty: Breach of Contract | 24CU000882C

Ruling

BACKES, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC.
Jul 18, 2024 | Civil Unlimited (Other Breach of Contract/Warr...) | 22CV021148
22CV021148: BACKES, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC. 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Request for Production; filed by Mary Backes (Plaintiff) + in Department 24 Tentative Ruling - 07/11/2024 Rebekah Evenson The Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Request for Production; filed by Mary Backes (Plaintiff) + scheduled for 04/04/2024 is continued to 08/29/2024 at 09:00 AM in Department 24 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse . Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is CONTINUED to August 29, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 24. This motion was previously scheduled for hearing on April 4, 2024, then continued to May 23, and then continued again to July 18, each time because the parties had not delivered courtesy copies of their papers to Department 24, as required by Alameda County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 3.30(c). The Court has received courtesy copies of Defendant's opposition papers, and of Plaintiffs' reply papers, but it still has not received courtesy copies of Plaintiffs' moving papers. By no later than July 22, Plaintiffs shall deliver courtesy copies of their moving papers directly to Department 24. If Plaintiffs fail to do so, the Court will drop this motion from the calendar and vacate the continued August 29, 2024 hearing date.

Ruling

MIRNA CUELLAR, ET AL. VS MAY FOK, TRUSTEE OF FOK FAMILY TRUST
Jul 16, 2024 | 22STCV04496
Case Number: 22STCV04496 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: 58 Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki Department 58 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Case Name: Mirna Cuellar v. Fok Family Trust, et al. Case No.: 22STCV04496 Matter: Demurrer to Cross Complaint Moving Party: Plaintiffs Mirna Cuellar and Hector Cuellar Responding Party: Defendants Fok Family Trust and May Fok Tentative Ruling: The Demurrer to the Cross-complaint is overruled. This action arises out of an employment dispute. Plaintiffs Mirna Cuellar and Hector Cuellar sued Defendant May Fok in her individual capacity and as trustee of the Fok Family Trust for breach of contract and various Labor Code violations, such as failure to pay minimum wage and waiting time penalties. Plaintiff Mirna Cuellar alleges she worked as the property manager of an apartment building (Property) pursuant to a written agreement. Plaintiff Hector alleges he entered into an oral agreement to provide handyman services for the Property but has not been paid any of his wages. On March 21, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint. The parties stipulated to allow Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint. On January 12, 2023, Defendants May Fok, individually and trustee of the Fok Family Trust, filed a demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint. The court sustained the demurer in its entirety with leave to amend. On March 14, 2023, a Third Amended Complaint was filed. On May 10, 2023, Defendants filed a demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint. The court overruled the demurrer in its entirety. On February 27, 2024, Defendants May Fok, individually and trustee of the Fok Family Trust, filed a Cross-complaint. Plaintiffs Mirna Cuellar and Hector Cuellar, now demur to the second and fourth causes of action alleged in the Cross-complaint. Defendants filed an opposition. Plaintiffs filed a reply. The Court overrules the demurrer to the Cross-Complaint in its entirety. Evidentiary Issues Plaintiffs request for judicial notice of Exhibit A is granted. The court takes judicial notice of the document, but not to the facts stated therein. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) Legal Standard for Demurrers A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading by raising questions of law. ( Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) The court treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law . . . . ( Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) In applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. ( Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.) Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires that [b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).) Meet and Confer Plaintiffs counsel states that he met and conferred with counsel prior to the filing of the demurrer. (Declaration of Everett J. Gotfredson (Gotfredson Decl.) ¶ 2.) The Court notes that counsel fails to provide any facts as to how the parties met and conferred. Therefore, the meet and confer requirement was insufficient. Nevertheless, the court will analyze the merits below. Second Cause of Action Breach of Fiduciary Duty The demurrer argues that Defendants/Cross-complainants failed to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty because they lack standing as they did not allege that Plaintiffs were employees. Moreover, in pleadings and in discovery responses, Defendant May Fok has repeatedly insisted that the Cuellars were never employees of either May or Clifford Fok, or of the Fok Family Trust. Defendants argue that the Second Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action against the Plaintiffs because it is undisputed that Plaintiffs are claiming that they were employees of Cross-Complainant, The Fok Family Trust. Moreover, there is standing to sue since Cross-Complainant alleges that she is both a trustee and beneficiary of the Fok Family Trust at paragraph 1 of the Cross-Complaint. Additionally, the second cause of action allegations are not inconsistent with cross complainant's verified discovery responses and are based on alternative legal theories applicable to Plaintiff's claims that they were the property manager and the handyman for the Fok Family Trust. In reply, Plaintiffs argues that Defendants inconsistently plead the relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendants and thus fail to state sufficient facts for this cause of action. To establish a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, plaintiff must plead (1) existence of a fiduciary duty; (2) breach of the fiduciary duty; and (3) damage proximately caused by the breach. ( Gutierrez v. Girardi (2011) 194 Cal. App. 4th 925, 932.) A fiduciary relationship requires that a relationship exist between parties to a transaction wherein one of the parties is duty bound to act with the utmost good faith for the benefit of the other party. ( Wolf v. Superior Court (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 25, 29.) A relationship ordinarily exists when a con¿dence is reposed by one person in the integrity of another, and . . . the party in whom the con¿dence is reposed, if he voluntarily accepts or assumes to accept the con¿dence, can take no advantage from his acts relating to the interest of the other party without the latters knowledge or consent. ( Ibid .) Here, the parties dispute standing to bring the claim. The Cross Complaint alleges Cross-Complainant, May Fok (hereinafter Cross-Complainant), is an individual residing in Walnut Creek, CA. Cross-Complainant is a beneficiary and Successor trustee of the Fok Family Trust. (Cross Compl., ¶ 1.) The Court notes that the determination of standing in this case is a purely factual issue. As such whether or not Plaintiffs were employees or not is beyond the scope of the demurrer. On its face, the Cross Complaint establishes a fiduciary relationship based on Defendants status as a beneficiary and Successor trustee. Thus, the Court finds that a breach of fiduciary duty has been adequately alleged. The Court overrules the demurer as to the second cause of action. Fourth Cause of Action Financial Elder Abuse In demurring to the fourth cause of action by Defendants, Plaintiff argues this claim fails because the Cross-complaint does not allege that the cause of action has been assigned to her. Defendants argue that the Fourth Cause of Action For Elder Abuse states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because Defendants have standing to bring the claim as a trustee and beneficiary of the Fok Family Trust. In reply, Plaintiffs argue that May Fok does not identify her grounds of standing for the claims of torts committed against Clifford Fok. She has alleged that she is the successor trustee (and a beneficiary) of an Inter Vivos Trust of which Mr. Fok was the Trustee, which is permissible; but there is no allegation that the "elder" whose "abuse" gives rise to a cause of action is anyone other than Clifford Fok, or that the claim passed to anyone other than the estate of Clifford Fok. The elements of a cause of action for financial elder abuse are (1) that defendant took, hid, appropriated, obtained or retained the property of the elder; (2) that the plaintiff is 65 years of age or older; (3) the defendant took, hid, appropriated, obtained or retained the property for wrongful use, intent to defraud, or by undue influence; (4) that plaintiff was harmed; and (5) that defendants conduct was a substantial factor is causing plaintiffs harm. (See CACI 3100. Financial Abuse, Essential Factual Elements (Welf. & Inst. Code, §15610.30).) As discussed above, the Court finds that the allegations by Defendants are sufficient to state a claim. The court overrules the demurer as to the fourth cause of action. Conclusion The demurrer to the Cross-complaint is overruled in its entirety. Plaintiffs and Cross-defendants shall file and serve their Answer to the Cross-complaint on or before August 6, 2024.

Ruling

Georgiou, Christos vs. FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company
Jul 29, 2024 | S-CV-0051850
S-CV-0051850 Georgiou, Christos vs. FCA US LLC ** NOTE: telephonic appearances are strongly encouraged NOTE: No party has paid advance jury fees pursuant to CCP § 631. Trial Date & Length: 12/29/25 5 day Jury Trial (Please contact Master Calendar (916) 408-6061 on the business day prior to the scheduled trial date to find courtroom availability.) Civil Trial Conference: 12/12/25 (heard at 8:30 am in Dept. 3) Mandatory Settlement Conference: 12/05/25 (heard at 8:30am; report to Jury Services) NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED UNLESS REQUESTED BY PARTY BY 3PM ON THE THURSDAY PRIOR TO HEARING DATE. REQUESTS FOR APPEARANCE MUST BE FAXED TO THE CIVIL DEPARTMENT, ATTN: CMC CLERK AT (916) 408-6275, AND TO ALL OPPOSING ATTORNEYS AND PARTIES WITHOUT ATTORNEYS BY 3:00 PM THE THURSDAY PRIOR TO THE CASE MANAGEMENT DATE. SEE LOCAL RULE 20.1.7.

Ruling

ROBERT LINDHOLM, ET AL. VS JUDICIAL JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT SERVICES, ET AL.
Jul 16, 2024 | 24STCV04536
Case Number: 24STCV04536 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: 39 TENTATIVE RULING DEPARTMENT 39 HEARING DATE July 16, 2024 CASE NUMBER 24STCV04536 MOTION Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint MOVING PARTIES Defendant Crystal Bergstrom OPPOSING PARTY Plaintiffs Robert Lindholm and Carolyn Lindholm BACKGROUND Defendant Crystal Bergstrom (Defendant) moves to quash service of summons. Plaintiffs Robert Lindholm and Carolyn Lindholm (Lindholm) (collectively, Plaintiffs) oppose the motion. ANALYSIS A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion . . . [t]o quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) In the absence of a voluntary submission to the authority of the court, compliance with the statutes governing service of process is essential to establish that court's personal jurisdiction over a defendant. ( Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439.) Plaintiffs filed a proof of service of summons, which reflects Plaintiffs served Defendant by personal service on March 1, 2024 at 8:05 a.m., at 47 Marseille in Laguna Niguel. (See Proof of Service of Summons, filed May 17, 2024.) However, the proof of service does not indicate the person who made the service was a California registered process server. Therefore, the presumption, pursuant to Evidence Code section 647, service was effectuated does not apply in this instance. Defendant provides her own declaration. She states no one served her, and there is no record of a process server entering her gated community on March 1, 2024. (See Declaration of Crystal Bergstrom.) As such, especially given the presumption of service under Evidence Code section 647 has not attached, Plaintiffs have the burden to prove Plaintiffs properly served Defendant. ( Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.) In opposition, Plaintiffs have submitted Lindbloms declaration. Lindblom, who is an attorney representing Plaintiffs in this action, declares the attorney service informed her it could enter the gated community in which Defendant resides by following a resident through the gate. (See Declaration of Carolyn Lindholm.) If offered for the truth of the matter asserted, this is hearsay, and inadmissible. (Evid. Code, § 1200.) Further, this testimony is irrelevant to the issue of whether the process server, on Plaintiffs behalf, did in fact serve Defendant on March 1, 2015. Therefore, Plaintiffs have not satisfied their burden of demonstrating Defendant had been served. Accordingly, the motion to quash is granted. Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this order and to file proof of service of same.

Ruling

Brockman vs. FCA US, LLC, et al.
Jul 16, 2024 | 22CV-0201145
BROCKMAN VS. FCA US, LLC, ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0201145 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of dismissal. At the most recent review hearing on April 15, 2024, the Court was informed that parties were working toward finalizing a settlement agreement. No updated information has been provided. No Notice of Settlement has been filed. No Request for Dismissal has been filed. The Court is in receipt of “Notice of Removal of Action to United States District Court” filed in the Shasta County Superior Court on May 8, 2023. Pursuant to that notice, this Court’s jurisdiction is automatically suspended. 28 USC §1446(d); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d 670. All future hearing dates were therefore vacated. In light of the foregoing, this Court finds this case is exempt from the case disposition time goals under California Rule of Court §3.714(c)(1) and the case is hereby Administratively Closed unless and until it is remanded. No further appearances are required by the parties, including at today’s Review Hearing.

Ruling

MICHAEL ROBELO VS. AVILA OCEAN ADVENTURES, LLC ET AL
Jul 17, 2024 | CGC24615223
Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 17, 2024 line 7. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE is GRANTED as requested. =(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.

Ruling

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORAT...
Jul 16, 2024 | Civil Unlimited (Other Commercial/Business Tor...) | 24CV073476
24CV073476: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION, et al. 07/16/2024 Hearing on Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY (Defendant) + in Department 21 Tentative Ruling - 07/16/2024 Noël Wise The Motion to Be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY on 06/07/2024 is Granted. Pursuant to Government Code section 70617(e)(2), on or before the anniversary of the date of this order Pro Hac Vice Applicant KEVIN P. ZIMMERMAN shall pay a renewal fee of five hundred dollars ($500) for each year that Pro Hac Vice Applicant maintains pro hac vice status in this case. The Court hereby sets a compliance hearing for 08/25/2025 at 01:30 PM in Department 21 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse. If the renewal fee has been paid at least 10 calendar days before the hearing, no appearance will be required. PLEASE NOTE: This tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if uncontested by 04:00pm the day before your hearing. If you wish to contest the tentative ruling, then both notify opposing counsel directly and the court at the eCourt portal found on the court’s website: www.alameda.courts.ca.gov. If you have contested the tentative ruling or your tentative ruling reads, “parties to appear,” please use the following link to access your hearing at the appropriate date and time: https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/department21 . If no party has contested the tentative ruling, then no appearance is necessary.

Ruling

VANCITY TRADE LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS DONJIE LIN, ET AL.
Jul 17, 2024 | 23STCV00347
Case Number: 23STCV00347 Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 Dept: 74 Vancity Trade LLC v. Lin et al. Plaintiffs Motion to Continue Trial and Related Dates The court denies plaintiffs motion to continue trial without prejudice to plaintiffs renewing its request to continue trial when plaintiff files and serves a timely motion for summary judgment. The court is mindful of its obligation to hear timely motions for summary judgment despite a congested court calendar. ( Cole v. Superior Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5 th 84, 88; Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529-530.) No impediment existed to plaintiff filing and serving a motion for summary judgment. When plaintiff files and serves a timely motion for summary judgment, the court will satisfy the courts obligation under Cole and Sentry by continuing trial.

Document

SMARTRISE ENGINEERING, INC. vs. LIFT CONTROL ENGINEERING, INC. et al
Sep 24, 2021 | Civil-Roseville | Contract: Breach Cont/Warranty (06) | S-CV-0047359

Document

UNION CITY TOWNHOUSE ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT, MU...
Jul 15, 2024 | Joscelyn C. Jones | Civil Unlimited (Negligent Breach of Contract/...) | Civil Unlimited (Negligent Breach of Contract/...) | 24CV083407

Document

CAITLIN CHALMERS VS. BRIAN CAYNE ET AL
Jul 15, 2024 | CONTRACT/WARRANTY | CONTRACT/WARRANTY | CGC24616404

Document

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association vs Todd Osborne, et al
Aug 22, 2023 | Schmal, Timothy | (06) Unlimited Breach of Contract / Warranty | 23CV02018

Document

MESA VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC.
May 06, 2024 | Pulskamp, Gregory | 06-CV Breach of Contract/Warranty-Civil Unlimited | BCV-24-101547

Document

Sarah Mapel vs California Fair Plan Association, et al
Mar 28, 2022 | Cogliati, Syda Kosofsky | (06) Unlimited Breach of Contract / Warranty | 22CV00631

Document

David Benitez, Junior vs General Motors LLC
Feb 17, 2022 | McCabe, Brian | (06): Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty | 22CV-00503

Document

Angel Wang, et al vs Xinrui "Lisa" Li, et al
May 02, 2022 | Volkmann, Timothy | (06) Unlimited Breach of Contract / Warranty | 22CV00872