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

Brookfield Vs Moges And Endris

Case Last Refreshed: 3 years ago

Brookfield Owners Association Inc, filed a(n) Foreclosure - Property case represented by Heyer William Mciver, against Moges , Adebe, Endris , Workye, in the jurisdiction of Travis County, TX, . Travis County, TX Superior Courts .

Case Details for Brookfield Owners Association Inc v. Moges , Adebe , et al.

Filing Date

December 23, 2014

Category

Home Equity Loan Foreclosure (Gen Lit )

Last Refreshed

February 20, 2021

Practice Area

Property

Filing Location

Travis County, TX

Matter Type

Foreclosure

Parties for Brookfield Owners Association Inc v. Moges , Adebe , et al.

Plaintiffs

Brookfield Owners Association Inc

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Heyer William Mciver

Defendants

Moges , Adebe

Endris , Workye

Other Parties

Occupant Of The Property (Other)

Case Documents for Brookfield Owners Association Inc v. Moges , Adebe , et al.

MTN:OTHER MOTION

Date: April 22, 2015

ORIGINAL PETITION/APPLICATION

Date: December 23, 2014

DWOP BLANKET ORDER

Date: August 22, 2016

Case Events for Brookfield Owners Association Inc v. Moges , Adebe , et al.

Type Description
Docket Event DWOP BLANKET ORDER
Docket Event OTHER FILING
Docket Event MTN:OTHER MOTION
Docket Event EXECUTED SERVICE
Docket Event ISS:CITATION
Docket Event ORIGINAL PETITION/APPLICATION
See all events

Related Content in Travis County

Case

IN THE INTEREST OF R. P. CHILD(REN)
Jul 12, 2024 | 201ST, DISTRICT COURT | AG Parent Child Relationship | D-1-FM-24-005144

Case

MARISOL SANCHEZ VS. DAVID PIAZZA,ANDERSON TRUCKING LLC
Jul 17, 2024 | 250TH, DISTRICT COURT | MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT | D-1-GN-24-004389

Case

ESTATE OF JOHNNY FRED WATERS, DECEASED
Jul 18, 2024 | Chu, Nicholas | All Other Estate Proceedings | C-1-PB-24-001708

Case

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF VALERIE MARIE ARGUMEDO VS. HANNAH LEIGH SCHLANKEY
Jul 16, 2024 | 261ST, DISTRICT COURT | Divorce - No Children | D-1-FM-24-005208

Case

ALYSSA GUERRERO VS. MARIO MADRID
Jul 15, 2024 | 200TH, DISTRICT COURT | MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT | D-1-GN-24-004350

Case

IN THE INTEREST OF C. D.,K. D. CHILD(REN)
Jul 17, 2024 | 250TH, DISTRICT COURT | Parent-Child Relationship | D-1-FM-24-005281

Ruling

Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP VS Ferris
Jul 15, 2024 | Civil Unlimited (Other Real Property (not emin...) | HG19018129
HG19018129: Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP VS Ferris 07/15/2024 Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs filed by Minh Ngoc Thi Ferris (Defendant) in Department 19 Tentative Ruling - 07/11/2024 Joscelyn Jones The Motion to Tax Costs filed by Minh Ngoc Thi Ferris on 05/14/2024 is Granted. The Motion by Defendant and Cross-Complainant Minh Ngoc Thi Ferris to Strike the Memorandum of Costs filed by Costs filed by Cross-Defendant Lorie Williams is GRANTED. Williams prevailed in two special motions to strike, directed at two different cross-complaints (one filed by Ming Ngoc Thi Ferris, one filed by Michael Ferris.) Williams then filed one Memorandum of Costs that does not identify or distinguish which costs were incurred in defending against which cross-complaint. Williams’ failure to do so makes her Memorandum of Costs defective and inadequate. This case is distinguishable from Acosta v. SI Corp. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1376, cited by Williams, in which a defendant was sued by several plaintiffs who were represented by a single law firm and pursued a single cause of action against the defendant. Here, Minh Ngoc Thi Ferris and Michael Ferris were represented by separate counsel who filed separate cross-complaints that were the subject of two separate motions to strike. Even if the Court were to find that filing one Memorandum of Costs combining the costs of prevailing against two separate cross-complainants on two separate cross-complaints were procedurally appropriate, the Court cannot determine what costs were incurred by Williams in prevailing on those cross-complaints. The Memorandum of Costs provides no information as to how those costs were incurred, and the declaration of James Pagano apparently refers to exhibits that he did not attach to his declaration. Rather than sequentially numbering his exhibits, Pagano has attached exhibits “JLP-1”, “JLP-2”, “JLP-2A” through “JLP-2H”, and “JLP-3A” through “JLP-3B”, but his declaration (at paragraphs 10(A)-10(B)) refers to documents purportedly attached as Exhibits “JLP-4A” through “JLP-4H”.

Ruling

MARY ANN T. GO VS. DAVID P. CARAVANTES ET AL
Jul 17, 2024 | CGC22603711
Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 17, 2024 line 4. DEFENDANT DAVID CARAVANTES Motion For Interlocutory Judgmnt Of Partition is GRANTED.. Having reviewed the proposed interlocutory judgments, the Court will not accept either side's draft and will issue a modified interlocutory judgement. =(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

MICHELLE TRAVIS, ET AL. VS FRED DI BERNARDO, ET AL.
Jul 16, 2024 | 23LBCV00238
Case Number: 23LBCV00238 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: S25 Background On February 8, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants Fred Di Bernardo (erroneously sued as Fred Di Bernardo), Kathryn Vance (erroneously sued as Kathryn Vance) (collectively Defendants) and Does 1 through 20, alleging four causes of action: (1) breach of governing documents, (2) nuisance, (3) negligence and (4) declaratory relief. Plaintiffs allege that they, at all relevant times, owned and resided at a condominium at 162nd Place Unit 303, Long Beach, CA 90803 and that Defendant Bernardo has, at all relevant times, owned Unit 403, located directly above Plaintiffs condominium. (Compl., ¶¶ 1-3.) Plaintiffs assert Defendant Vance resides at Unit 403 as a Tenant. (Compl., ¶ 4.) The two condominiums are part of the Peninsula Pacifica Homeowners Association (the HOA); Plaintiffs allege the HOA and each of its members, including Plaintiffs and Defendant Dibernardo, are bound by the Declaration of Establishment of Basis Protective Restrictions, Limitations, Conditions, Covenants and Reservations (the CC&Rs) recorded in the Official Records of Los Angeles County on August 23, 1973 as well as the Bylaws of Peninsula Pacifica Homeowners Association (the Bylaws). (Compl., ¶¶ 10-14, Exhs. A-B.) Plaintiffs allege that on or about July 1, 2022, they discovered black mold along the baseboards of their master bathroom. (Compl., ¶ 19, Exh. C.) Plaintiffs contacted All-American Mold Remediation & Consulting LLC (AMR) to investigate, and AMR found extensive water damage in the master bedroom and vanity area, detected high moisture throughout the ceiling and walls, and discovered mold and moisture in other parts of the master bathroom. (Compl., ¶¶ 20-22, Exh. D.) After AMRs first property inspection, Plaintiffs emailed the HOA and Defendant Vance, notifying them of the mold issue; Defendant Vance agreed to have a leak detection service conduct an inspection. (Compl., ¶¶ 23-24, Exh. E.) On July 22, 2022, American Leak Detection (ALD) inspected Unit 403 and determined water was leaking from Unit 403 to Unit 303 through a bathtubs improperly sealed spout and cover plates. (Compl., ¶¶ 26, 27, Exh. F.) Plaintiff also asserts that on July 25, 2022, AMR returned to Unit 303 and confirmed the source of the water damage as a leak from Unit 403s bathtub. (Compl., ¶ 28.) Plaintiffs further allege that while the ceiling in the Unit 303s master bathroom was open, Plaintiffs and ALD observed and recorded water entering Unit 303 from Unit 403 when the Defendant Vance ran water upstairs in Unit 403s bathroom. (Compl., ¶ 29.) On July 28, 2022, Plaintiffs allegedly spoke with Defendant Dibernardo, who disputed the leak in Unit 403 and refused to further communicate with Plaintiffs. Additionally, Plaintiffs claims Defendant Dibernardo will not provide Defendant Vance or the HOA with his insurance information. (Compl., ¶¶ 30-33.) Plaintiffs state Defendant Dibernardo allegedly hired a plumber to fix the leak in Unit 403, but no proof of work completion was provided to the HOA until around December 22, 2022. (Compl., ¶ 36.) Plaintiffs claim they were unable to live in Unit 303 as no assurances were made that the leak would not reoccur. (Ibid.) Legal Standard The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties' pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1110, 1119.) On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact. (Scalfv. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 1510, 1519.) A plaintiff or cross-complainant has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant or cross-defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(1). When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. (Avivi, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at 467; CCP § 437c(c).) Evidentiary Objections The Court rules as follows on Defendant Dibernardos evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Michele Travis: Nos. 1, 3 and 4 (Overruled) and Nos. 2 and 5 (Sustained). The Court rules as follows on Defendant Dibernardos evidentiary objections to the Declaration of William Idleman. Nos. 1 and 2 (Overruled). Judicial Notice Plaintiffs Request for Judicial Notice of Exhibit 1 (Declaration of Establishment of Basis Protective Restrictions, Limitations, Conditions, Covenants and Reservations recorded on August 23, 1973, as Instrument No. 3059 in the Official Records of Los Angeles County) is granted pursuant to Evidence Code, §§ 451, 452, subds. (c) and (g). Parties Arguments Plaintiffs move for summary adjudication on the following: (1) 1st Cause of Action (Breach of the Governing Documents); (2) whether Defendants owed a duty to maintain Unit 403 in accordance with the CC&Rs; (3) whether Defendants owed a duty not to commit a nuisance; and (4) whether Defendants owed a duty of care under the negligence cause of action not to damage Plaintiffs property. Defendant Dibernardo opposes arguing that: (1) Plaintiffs First Cause of Action for Breach of the HOA Governing Documents is essentially a breach of contract claim and (2) triable issues of material facts exist. Analysis The existence of an issue of duty may be a proper subject for a motion for summary adjudication. Courts may summarily adjudicate that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. (CCP § 437c(f)(1); Linden Partners v. Wilshire Linden Assocs. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 508, 518. Thus, theoretically, a motion for summary adjudication as to whether Defendant owed a duty under the CC & Rs would be appropriate. Plaintiffs characterize their motion as seeking adjudication as to whether Defendants owed a duty under the CC&Rs. However, the instant motion, as well as Plaintiffs separate statement of facts, it appears that Plaintiffs not only seek the Court to determine whether such a duty exists as a matter of law, but consequently, find that the Defendants breached their alleged duty and are liable for damages as a matter of law. (Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Adjudication, p. 5:7-14, 9:28 10:1-5, 13:22-23.) The instant motion for summary adjudication as the 1st cause of action; Issue of Duty No. 1 - whether Defendants owed a duty to maintain Unit 403 in accordance with the CC&Rs; Issue of Duty No. 2 - whether Defendants owed a duty not to commit a nuisance; and Issue of Duty No. 3 -whether Defendants owed a duty of care under the negligence cause of action not to damage Plaintiffs property are denied to the extent that the motion seeks adjudication of the elements of breach and causation. These are not proper matters for a motion for summary adjudication. (See Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 226, 243 [where damages are an element of a cause of action, such as here in the cause of action for negligence, and the damages amount remains disputed, Plaintiff cannot obtain summary adjudication on the elements pertaining to liability]). Assuming arguendo that the Defendants are bound under the terms of the CR&Rs, which Defendants may not dispute (See DSSUF Nos. 7-9), the Court finds there are triable issues of material facts as to whether Defendants Dibernardo and Vance breach their duty of care under the CC&Rs, whether that breach resulted in the alleged water damage of Unit 303, and/or whether alternative sources within Unit 303s bathroom contributed to the claimed damage. (See DSSUF 2-7, 10; Daly Decl., ¶¶ 4, 6-11; Carpenter Decl., ¶¶ 6-12, 14, 15.)

Ruling

Wilkinson vs. Wilkinson, et al.
Jul 16, 2024 | 23CV-0202523
WILKINSON VS. WILKINSON, ET AL. Case Number: 23CV-0202523 This matter is on calendar for trial setting. The matter is at issue. The Court designates this matter as a Plan II case and intends to set the matter for trial no later than December 16, 2024. The parties are ordered to meet and confer prior to the hearing regarding proposed dates for a court trial. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

Ruling

Charles Cox vs Richard Mroczek, et al
Jul 20, 2024 | 23CV02337
23CV02337 COX v. MROCZEK, et al. CONFIRMATION OF 6/28/24 ORDER TO GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT AND OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF NONMONETARY STATUS The court has reviewed plaintiff’s Notification of Objection to and Disapproval of Any Proposed Order or Other Order: 1) Granting Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Complaint; or 2) Striking Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff’s objections merely go to the process by which parties engage on proposed orders; CRC 3.1312 has no impact on the power of the court to strike plaintiff’s amended complaint and dismiss this action. The court’s previous order of 6/28/24 granting defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s amended complaint is confirmed, as is dismissal of this action. Defendants are ordered to submit a formal dismissal order for the court’s signature. Page 1 of 2 Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing (unless the tentative is simply to “grant”). Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed. Page 2 of 2

Ruling

655 POWELL I5, LP VS. MICHAEL RUTLEDGE ET AL
Jul 15, 2024 | CUD22670193
Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 15, 2024 line 6. PLAINTIFF 655 POWELL I5, LP Motion To Enforce Settlement: Memorandum Of Points And Authorities is GRANTED. Judgment shall enter for $54,000 for the "balance owing" under the stipulation and for reasonable attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $2,250. Request for prejudgment interest and NSF fees is not supported by the terms of the settlement agreement or authority. No opposition filed. =(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

Milo Dante Lewis vs Suzette Wurz, AKA Suzette Murphy
Jul 16, 2024 | STK-CV-URP-2023-0000728
TENTATIVE RULING NOTICE Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing. Any party wishing to contest or argue the tentative ruling must email the court at civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org. that they intend to appear remotely no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. The Department and Case Number must be in the header of the email. The email must include the Department, Case number, Case Name, Motion, party’s name and email, date and time of the hearing, issues they plan to argue, and that they have informed the opposing party. The party must also notify affected counsel, or unrepresented parties, that they intend to appear, no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. Unless the Court and opposing counsel have been notified, the tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court without oral argument. To attend the remote hearing with Judge Kronlund in Dept. 10-D: Call into (209) 992-5590, then follow the prompts and use the Bridge # and Pin # as follows: Bridge # 6940 Pin # 3782 Tentative Ruling Court is issuing one tentative ruling for all three motions on calendar this date As a preliminary matter, Court is Ordering Plaintiff's "First Amended Verified Complaint", filed on demand, to be stricken as improperly brought. A litigant may not refile an originally-stamped document as Plaintiff has attempted to do by way of this improper filing. 1. Plaintiff's Second motion for Sanctions is Denied. Plaintiff specifically states in his supplemental declaration that he is not asking the Court to reconsider any of the issues that the Court already decided in the first motion for sanctions. Court once again finds that Plaintiff's Second motion for Sanctions is wholly without basis and proof. Again, like with his first motion for Sanctions, Plaintiff is arguing the merits of the underlying case in a "Motion for Sanctions", which this Court has already explained to Plaintiff is improper. The Court has previously explained that the trial is the proper avenue to test the evidence and challenge the truthfulness of discovery responses; not sanctions' motions. CCP Sections 128.5 and 128.7 are not discovery sanction sections in any event. Further, there is no basis under either CCP Section 2023.010 or CCP Section 2023.030 for an award of sanctions on this record. Additionally, there was improper service of notice of the motion. Plaintiff's request for judicial notice of the marital settlement agreement is Denied, as not relevant to this motion. Although a certified copy of a document may be subject to judicial notice, it is only so recognized if it is relevant. It may be offered at trial, subject to possible objections, when we get to the merits of the case. The Court has now denied Plaintiff's sanction motions twice; and this Second motion is eerily similar to the first motion Plaintiff brought. The Court finds this motion to be frivolous, and awards Defendant reasonable attorney's fees of $1,925 if there is no request by Plaintiff for oral argument, or in the amount of $3,025 if Plaintiff requests oral argument. The fees are set based on Defense Counsel's rate of $550/hour, which this Court finds to be reasonable for this legal community. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the monetary sanctions to the Defense within 30 days of this ruling. 2. Plaintiff's Third motion for Sanctions is Denied. CCP Sections 2023.010, 2023.030. Sanctions are not proper for an attorney's advocacy, which is what Plaintiff is basing this motion on. And more perplexing, Plaintiff brings this motion based on a discovery motion which the Defense brought against Plaintiff, and Defendant won. The behavior of Attorney Fluetsch complained of by Plaintiff is not a misuse or abuse of the discovery process, and in no way supports an award of sanctions. Court disagrees with Plaintiff's characterization of Mr. Fluetsch's alleged making "false statements of law and fact" to the Court. The opposing sides of this litigation had a discovery dispute; no more, no less. Additionally, there was improper service of notice of the motion. 3. Plaintiff's motion to continue trial is Denied. Court does not find good cause has been shown, as required. CRC Rule 3.1332. This trial was already continued once, and Plaintiff has not been diligent in seeking discovery such as getting Defendant deposed; he hasn't even noticed her deposition, according to the Defense. Trial is less than 60 days away, and Defendant would be prejudiced by a continuance at this point. It would not serve judicial efficiency or judicial economy to continue the trial. Additionally, Defense Counsel will be engaged in other trials, until mid-2025, so a continuance is not practical. Plaintiff has the option of dismissing one of his cases should he decide to do so, or the Defense can bring an appropriate motion to possibly eliminate multiple actions. Further, the fact that Plaintiff disagrees with Defendant's discovery responses is not a basis for a trial continuance; it highlights the need to have the trial proceed to get to the bottom of the dispute in question. Additionally, there was improper service of notice of the motion. Plaintiff indicates that a one-day trial will not be sufficient, and that a continuance is necessary for a two-day trial. This Court can accommodate allowing Plaintiff a second day of trial, if necessary for a full and fair presentation of his case. A continuance is not required for that. Plaintiff's request for judicial notice is Granted as to Exhibits A & B, but not as to Exhibit C, which is not relevant to this motion to continue. Barbara A Kronlund

Ruling

Joshua Delage et al. vs Mark Alan Wall et al.
Jul 19, 2024 | STK-CV-URP-2023-0012309
Please use Case Management Search for Tentative Ruling(s).

Document

Progress Residential Borrower 12 LLC vs Karen Callahan and All Occupants
Jul 15, 2024 | Evictions | 24-JEV41-00839

Document

TERRACES @ 2602 vs. DENISE DEJOHNETTE
Jul 16, 2024 | Rikard, Gregory L. | Eviction | 24-EV01-0682

Document

Martin Ayanegui vs Alicia Berger,Caprisha Gladden and All Occupants
Jul 15, 2024 | Evictions | 24-JEV41-00850

Document

Eleazar Ramos, San Juanita Quintanilla VS. Selene Finance LP
Jun 26, 2024 | Real Property - Other Real Property (OCA) | C-2994-24-H

Document

Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc. VS. Jeffrey A. Burch
Jul 15, 2024 | Foreclosure - Other Foreclosure | 24-07-10765

Document

PEI GAO vs KAYLYN BUCKLEY
Jul 15, 2024 | Evictions | 24-JEV21-30049