Related Content
in Hidalgo County
Ruling
MICHAEL ROSAS, ET AL. VS OC AUTO EXCHANGE DBA LA AUTO EXCHANGE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
Jul 09, 2024 |
22PSCV01925
Case Number:
22PSCV01925
Hearing Date:
July 9, 2024
Dept:
6
CASE NAME:
Michael Rosas, et al. v. OC Auto Exchange dba LA Auto Exchange, et al.
Motion to be Relieved as Plaintiffs Counsel
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court GRANTS the motion. Plaintiffs Counsel must resubmit a correct and complete proposed order prior to the hearing, addressing the items discussed above, including the correct courthouse address in the caption and noting that the order is effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order (Item 5.a.).
Counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five calendar days.
BACKGROUND
This is a fraud action. On November 21, 2022, plaintiffs Michael Rosas and Odalys Rosas (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action against defendants OC Auto Exchange dba LA Auto Exchange, a California corporation, Western Surety Company, a South Dakota corporation, Capital One Auto Finance Inc., a Texas Corporation (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 through 10. On February 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint against Defendants and Does 1 through 10, alleging causes of action for fraud & deceit, negligent misrepresentation, violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, action for rescission of sales contract for sale of goods pursuant to California [
sic
]
Code section 1698, violation of California Civil Code section 1632, violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty [
sic
], Civil Code section 1790, et seq., violation of the Consumers [
sic
] Legal Remedies Act Equitable and Injunctive Relief, and violation of Vehicle Code section 11711.
On September 5, 2023, Ben Roberts of Law Office of Ben Roberts moved to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion.
On March 25, 2024, the Court denied the motion without prejudice.
On June 13, 2024,
Ben Roberts of Law Office of Ben Roberts moved to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
The Court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted, provided that there is no prejudice to the client, and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. (
See
Ramirez v. Sturdevant
(1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915;
People v. Prince
(1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 403-407.)
A motion to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Council Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subds. (a), (c), (e).)
The requisite forms must be served on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362, subd. (d).)
DISCUSSION
Ben Roberts of Law Office of Ben Roberts (Counsel) seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs Michael Rosas and Odalys Rosas. Counsel contends he and his firm have lost all contact with Plaintiffs. (Roberts Decls., ¶ 2.)
Grounds for permitting an attorney to withdraw from representation include the clients conduct that renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the representation effectively[.] (Cal. Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 1.16, subd. (b)(4).) A breakdown in the attorney-client relationship is also grounds for allowing the attorney to withdraw. (
Estate of Falco
(1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1004, 1014.) While the Court finds Plaintiffs lack of communication sufficient grounds for permitting withdrawal, the Court finds a few issues with Counsels motions that need to be fixed.
First, each of the Judicial Council forms Counsel filed with the Court show that Counsel provided the wrong courthouse contact information in the caption of each document. Counsel provided the following contact information: 1427 West Covina Parkway, Compton, CA 90220. The correct courthouse address is 1427 West Covina Parkway, West Covina, CA 91790. Nevertheless, the proof of service filed on June 13, 2024, lists the correct courthouse address and the declaration provides the correct courthouse address for the Post-Arbitration Status Conference. The Court will not deny the motion on this ground but admonishes Counsel to carefully proofread documents to ensure they are accurate.
Second, the proposed order does not include the Post-Arbitration Status Conference scheduled for July 30, 2024. On May 13, 2024, the Courts minute order provided the new date. The motions to be relieved as counsel were filed on June 13, 2024, therefore, counsel was aware of the new date but failed to include it in the proposed order. The proposed order is also incomplete in that items 3, 5, 6, 9 and as previously discussed, item 7, have not been completed.
Notwithstanding, the Court GRANTS the motion. Plaintiff must resubmit a correct and complete proposed order prior to the hearing, addressing the items discussed above, including the correct courthouse address in the caption and noting that the order is effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order (Item 5.a.).
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion. Plaintiffs Counsel must resubmit a correct and complete proposed order prior to the hearing, addressing the items discussed above, including the correct courthouse address in the caption and noting that the order is effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order (Item 5.a.).
Counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five calendar days.
Ruling
ROBERT HULETT VS VONS, ET AL.
Jul 10, 2024 |
22STCV29766
Case Number:
22STCV29766
Hearing Date:
July 10, 2024
Dept:
32
PLEASE NOTE
:
Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.
If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at
sscdept32@lacourt.org
indicating that partys intention to submit.
The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsels contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.
If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.
If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.
Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court
.
TENTATIVE RULING
DEPT
:
32
HEARING DATE
:
July 10, 2024
CASE NUMBER
:
22STCV29766
MOTIONS
:
Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint
MOVING PARTY:
Plaintiff Robert Hulett
OPPOSING PARTY:
Defendant The Vons Companies, Inc.
BACKGROUND
On September 13, 2022, Plaintiff Robert Hulett (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Vons, Vons Supermarket Company, Novolex Corporation, Hilex Corporation, and Does 1 to 100 for negligence, premises liability, and products liability.
The products liability cause of action alleged the defective product was a reusable plastic bag, and was asserted against Novolex Corporation, Hilex Corporation, and Does 1 to 100 (and not against Vons).
On June 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file a first amended complaint in order to assert the products liability cause of action against Hilex Poly Co., LLC, The Vons Companies, Inc., and Does 1 to 100. Defendant The Vons Companies, Inc. (Vons) opposes. No reply has been filed.
LEGAL STANDARD
Amendment to Pleadings: General Provisions
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 576,
[a]ny judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.
Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: [t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.¿ The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.¿
This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.¿(
Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court
¿(1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)¿ The Court of Appeal in
Morgan v. Superior Court
held If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.
(
Morgan v. Superior Court
(1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530, citations omitted.)
Moreover, it is an abuse of discretion for the court to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.
(
Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court
(1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [opposing party did not establish harm by the delay in moving to amend the complaint].)
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324:
Procedural Requirements
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading before trial must:
(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleadings, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;
(2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and
(3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.
In addition, under Rule 3.1324(b), a motion to amend a pleading before trial must be accompanied by a separate declaration that specifies the following:
(1) the effect of the amendment;
(2) why the amendment is necessary and proper;
(3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and
(4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.
DISCUSSION
As an initial matter, the procedural requirements are not met because the declaration in support does not state when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reasons why the request was not made earlier. The declaration only states that the omission was discovered recently. (Chambers Decl. ¶ 5.) Additionally, the motion does not state by page, paragraph, and line number, the deletions or additions. However, Plaintiff has attached the proposed amended complaint. (Chambers Decl., Exh. A.)
Plaintiff argues this amendment will add Vons to the products liability cause of action, since Vons sold the product at issue: a reusable bag.
In opposition, Vons notes this incident occurred on October 2, 2020, the complaint was filed on
September 13, 2022, and argues Plaintiff has not sufficiently explained the reason for the delay in seeking this amendment
. Vons also asserts that throughout discovery in this case, Plaintiff has only asserted that he tripped over a parking stop in front of the store. While the complaint alleges a reusable bag for products liability, Vons states Plaintiff has never alleged facts that he tripped because his reusable bag broke, until May 28, 2024. (Macksoud Decl. ¶ 5.) Vons provides Plaintiffs response to its Special Interrogatories number 5 which asked, Describe with as much factual specificity (including names, dates, times and location) as You can, how the Incident occurred. (Macksoud Decl., Exh. A, SROG # 5.) In the response served February 3, 2023, Plaintiff uses language similar to the complaint but only alleges the defective condition as a parking stop. Nowhere does he allege a defect with a reusable bag. (See
id.
, Exh. B, SROG #5.)
Vons argues it will be prejudiced because it has not conducted discovery on this matter and trial is set for July 10, 2024.
[1]
If the Court is inclined to grant the amendment, Vons requests a continuance of trial to February-March 2025.
Based on the above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not provided sufficient reasons why this amendment was not sought earlier. Additionally, the delay in bringing this amendment will result in prejudice to Vons since trial is scheduled in less than two weeks and discovery is closed. Plaintiff has not filed a reply and fails to dispute Vons contentions or show why it did not present facts in discovery about the reusable bags role in the incident. Unexplained delays in seeking leave to amend is a valid reason to deny amendment. (
Doe v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services
(2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 675, 689.)
Therefore, the motion for leave to amend is denied.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is denied.
Plaintiff to provide notice and file a proof of service of such.
[1]
Trial is now currently set for July 17, 2024. Discovery remains closed. (See Min. Order, 6/26/24.)
Ruling
Cabrera vs. Rynearson, et al.
Jul 11, 2024 |
22CV-0201146
CABRERA VS. RYNEARSON, ET AL.
Case Number: 22CV-0201146
This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of settlement. The Court notes that the minor turned 18 on
July 5, 2024 and a minor’s compromise is no longer necessary. However, no update has been provided regarding
status of settlement. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
Ruling
TAVIT HALLAJIAN VS BEATRIZ STEPHANI DELGADO, ET AL.
Jul 10, 2024 |
21STCV46924
Case Number:
21STCV46924
Hearing Date:
July 10, 2024
Dept:
B
Tavit Hallajian v. Beatriz Stephani Delgado, et al.
Wednesday, July 10, 2024
CASE NUMBER: 21STCV46924
Request for Default Judgment against Defendants Beatriz Stephani Delgado and Maria Del Rosario Chavez Aguilar
Tentative
: The Court has reviewed the request for default judgment against Defendants and is CONTINUING the matter in order for Plaintiff to correct the following defects:
1.
Does 1-20 must be dismissed prior to obtaining default judgment.
2.
There is no declaration and supporting evidence in support of the judgment sought.
Ruling
JANE DOE K.D. vs. Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District, a public entity
Jul 10, 2024 |
SCV-272115
SCV-272115, Jane Doe K.D. v. Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District, a
public entity
Counsel Babak Shirdel and Slater, Slater, Schulman, LLP’s unopposed motion to be relieved as
counsel for Jane Doe K.D. is GRANTED, per Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2).
Counsel declares that it has been unreasonably difficult to carry out Plaintiff’s representation due
to breakdown in attorney-client relationship. (Counsel Declaration, ¶ 2.) Counsel served the
papers at Plaintiff’s last known address but has not been able to confirm by investigative
databases or telephone if this remains Plaintiff’s current address. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Counsel timely
served notice of this motion to all parties. (Proof of Service dated May 7, 2024.) The next item
scheduled in this matter is a case management conference on July 25, 2024. The Court will sign
counsel’s proposed order unless oral argument is requested.
Ruling
YINGNAN LI VS. ROBERT W. OTTINGER ET AL
Jul 10, 2024 |
CGC22603022
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Wednesday, July 10, 2024, Line 5. PLAINTIFF YINGNAN LI's MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 1ST Amended COMPLAINT. Off calendar. Notice of settlement of entire case filed June 18, 2024. =(302/RBU)
Ruling
WASHBON vs STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
Jul 11, 2024 |
CVRI2401690
DEMURRER ON COMPLAINT FOR
OTHER NON-PERSONAL
INJURY/PROPERTY
WASHBON VS STATE FARM
DAMAGE/WRONGFUL DEATH TORT
CVRI2401690 MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
(OVER $35,000) OF STEVE
INSURANCE COMPANY
WASHBON BY STATE FARM
MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, ADAM ANDERSON
Tentative Ruling:
SUSTAIN with 30 days leave to amend.
The third cause of action is uncertain because it includes allegations of negligence and negligent
misrepresentation, which are separate causes of action. While Cal. Rule of Court 2.112 does not
expressly require Plaintiff to split his claims into separate causes of action, Plaintiff should set
forth the different theories into separate counts to facilitate the adjudication of their validity.
Moreover, as pointed out by Defendant, this cause of action asserts some allegations against
Anderson only, and some allegations against Defendants jointly, rendering the cause of action
uncertain.
The fourth cause of action for fraud does not state a cause of action with the required degree of
specificity. Plaintiff does not describe where or when or by what means the representations were
made. Additionally, these representations appear to be contradictory. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant misrepresented that Plaintiff was not entitled to benefits and no coverage was available
for the claim, while also asserting Defendants misrepresented that coverage existed. Because
there is no context for either assertion, these allegations are confusing and ambiguous. Further,
it is not clear who made the representations, or if the employee had authority to speak on behalf
of the company. (Plaintiff states that the customer service representatives did not have authority
and Plaintiff was not assigned an adjuster. (Complaint Para. 20.)) The allegations are insufficient
to state a cause of action for fraud.
Ruling
PADRAIC RYAN VS. 41 TEHAMA, L.P., A DELAWARE CORPORATION ET AL
Jul 10, 2024 |
CGC24613636
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Wednesday, July 10, 2024, Line 13. DEFENDANT 41 TEHAMA LP, HINES INTERESTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND WILLOWICK MANAGEMENT LLC's MOTION TO ADMIT COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE. Hearing required. 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. 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
MARIA CONSUELO ELIZONDO VS. WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC, BONDED FILTER CO, LLC, CLIMATE CONTROL PROS, LLC, CRIMSON REFRIGERATION, INC., COOLSYS COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
Mar 31, 2022 |
Leticia Lopez
|
Injury or Damage - Other (OCA) |
C-1157-22-H