Unifund Corporation V. Wagner, Eric P

Case Number: 23STCV16750 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: 26 4 Dept. 73 Rolf Treu, Judge presiding M.S.S.C., LLC v. Rosana Torres (23STCV16750) Counsel for Plaintiffs/moving parties: Michelle Daneshrad Counsel for Defendants/opposing parties: N/A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT ( filed 12/15/2023) TENTATIVE RULING The court grants entry of default judgment. Discussion This case stems from allegations that Defendant Rosana A. Torres entered in to two written agreements to borrow $100,000.00 from Plaintiff M.S.S.C., LLC and failed to pay back the loan once it became due. ANALYSIS I. CRC 3.1800 (1) Use of JC Form CIV-100 YES (2) Dismissal or judgment of non-parties to the judgment YES (3) Declaration of non-military status for each defendant YES (4) Summary of the case YES (5) 585(d) declarations/admissible evidence in support YES (6) Exhibits (as necessary) YES (7) Interest computation (as necessary) YES (8) Cost memorandum YES (9) Request for attorney fees (Local Rule 3.214) YES (10) Proposed Judgment YES DAMAGES REQUESTED: $399,473 (Consistent with complaint.) INTEREST: $72,000 ATTORNEY FEES: $0 COSTS: $435 TOTAL: $471,473 Plaintiff has complied with all CRC requirements. The court grants the request for entry of default judgment against Defendant Torres.

Case Number: 19SMCV01008 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: I This matter was originally set for earlier this week, but the court was in trial and it had to be moved. In the order moving the hearing, the court stated that if the new date was not convenient for counsel, it would work with counsel to find a new date. The court is informed that today is not convenient for at least some counsel (and it turns out the court is in trial, albeit a different one). The courts staff will work with counsel to find a date that works for all. The court suggests a Friday, as the court tends not to hear trials on that day. For now, the court will set a placeholder date, but the date now set is really to make sure that a real date gets put on the calendar. The court apologizes for the scheduling snafu.

CU23-03186 HYUNDAI’s Motion to Compel Arbitration TENTATIVE RULING Defendant HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff SARAH JOHNSON’s complaint alleging causes of action under the Song- Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and for unfair business practices and negligent repair is granted. A facially valid and binding arbitration agreement exists between the parties in the relevant vehicle warranty contract. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2; Declaration of Nicole Croce at ¶ 3, Exhibit B (Croce).) The current dispute between the parties is within the scope of the agreement. (Luxor Cabs, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 970, 977; Croce at ¶ 3, Exhibit B.) Plaintiff, having not filed opposition, does not carry her burden of demonstrating why the agreement does not control.

LIVE ACTION ATTRACTIONS Motion to Strike Complaint on Cross- CVPS2401173 LLC vs PICKERING EVENTS Complaint of PICKERING EVENTS LLC by LLC LIVE ACTION ATTRACTIONS LLC Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint by Cross-Defendant Live Action Attractions, LLC is DENIED. The grounds for a Motion to Strike must appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matter which the court may judicially notice. (C.C.P. § 437(a).) “[T]he court treats as true the material facts alleged in the complaint, as well as any facts which may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged.” (Washington Int’l Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal. App. 4th 981, 984, fn. 2.). “[J]udges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth.” (Clauson v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.) The Promissory Fraud Cause of Action in the subject Cross-Complaint is separate from the Breach of Contract Cause of Action. Punitive damages may be awarded where a defendant fraudulently induces the plaintiff to enter into a contract. (Kuchta v. Allied Builders Corp. (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 541, 549.) “Fraud” is defined as, “an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” (Civ. Code, § 3294(c)(3).) The allegations in Paragraphs 9, 14 and 20-25 of the Cross-Complaint are sufficient to allege fraud and form the basis of the punitive damage allegations of the First Cause of Action.

MOTION TO COMPEL MENTAL PHOENIX CAPITAL GROUP EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT KEITH CVSW2206944 HOLDINGS, LLC VS KEITH CANDEE BY PHOENIX CAPITAL CANDEE GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC Tentative Ruling: The hearing is continued to August 16, 2024. The Reply makes reference to the Opposition. However, the court does not have the Opposition. The matter is continued so that the Opposition can be made available to the court.

S-CV-0051818 Navarro, Maria et al vs. Pinedo, Eugenio et al ** NOTE: telephonic appearances are strongly encouraged Appearance required. Complaint is not at issue - Need responsive pleading, default or dismissal as to Defendant(s): Eugenio, Pinedo; Socorro, PInedo

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 15, 2024 line 12. DEFENDANT EMPORIUM MALL LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILTY COMPANY, S.F. CENTRE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A DELAWARE Motion Of Defendants Emporium Mall Llc And S.F. Centre Limited Partnership For Order Staying Litigation; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities is denied. Defendants assertion that the "purpose" of the stay is to benefit the Receiver is belied by the Receiver's response to this motion. Moreover, the primary authority relied on by the defendants for their extraordinary request to stay another case is the final order appointing the Receiver that order states that the Receiver (not any other party) "may ... seek a blanket stay" of other lawsuits. While any judge of the San Francisco Superior Court has the jurisdiction to stay any case pending in this Court, staying another case should only be done where there is a clear need to do so. Defendants have not shown such a clear need. =(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.

FOULKE, ET AL. VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY Case Number: CVCV21-0197638 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of dismissal. At the hearing on April 8, 2024, counsel for Plaintiff informed the Court that the only issue that remains pending in Federal Court is attorney fees. No status report was filied informing the Court of the status of attorney fees and no Request for Dismissal has been filed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.