Related Content
in San Bernardino County
Ruling
ALANNA FOUTZ, ET AL. VS AFTON PROPERTIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
Jul 09, 2024 |
20STCV46605
Case Number:
20STCV46605
Hearing Date:
July 9, 2024
Dept:
45
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
ALANNA FOUTZ, an individual, JOHN
BASSETT, an individual, MARIA KCKENNA,
an individual, JOSH PETKER, an individual,
LAUREN MINTZER, an individual, GREG
CLARK, and EDWARD BARAN PIECHOCKI,
an individual,
Plaintiff,
vs.
AFTON PROPERTIES, INC., a California
Corporation; HAROLD HERSKOWITZ, an
individual; MY MANAGEMENT CO, INC., a
California Corporation; and Does 1 through 80,
inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No.: 20STCV46605
DEPARTMENT 45
[TENTATIVE] RULING
Action Filed: 12/07/2020
[1st Amended Complaint Filed: 09/29/2022]
Trial Date: 10/13/2025
Hearing date: 07/09/2024
Moving Party: All Plaintiffs
Responding Party: All Defendants
Plaintiffs Motion for an Order Awarding Monetary and Terminating Sanctions
The Court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply. Plaintiffs Motion for an Order Awarding Monetary and Terminating Sanctions is
DENIED
. The parties are ordered to meet and confer over the following:
·
The production of WhatsApp messages between Harold Herskowitz and Afton Properties, Inc. to determine whether these messages were produced.
·
The production of all internal emails from Afton Properties, Inc. concerning the subject property and the instant suit.
Background
This case was commenced on December 7, 2020 when a Complaint was filed by several plaintiffs against three defendants concerning the conditions of apartment units located at 360 N. Orange Grove, Ave., Los Angeles, Ca 90036 (the Premises). The plaintiffs subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on September 29, 2022 that alleged eight causes of action against three defendants: (a) Afton Properties, Inc. (Afton); (b) Harold Herskowitz (Herskowitz); and (c) My Management Co. Inc. (My Management).
The FAC alleges that Afton and My Management, who managed the Premises at different points in time, and Herskowitz, who owned the Premises, failed to provide a habitable premises and failed to address critical repairs including a red tagged gas furnace. (FAC, ¶¶12-14.)
The motion before the Court now concerns alleged discovery violations. Plaintiffs file a Motion for an Order Awarding Monetary and Terminating Sanctions (the Motion). All Defendants oppose the Motion, and Plaintiffs file a reply.
Discussion
Legal Standard
Although CCP § 2023.030 provides the Court the power to dismiss an action as a sanction for misuse of the discovery process, The sanction of dismissal&against the disobedient party is ordinarily a drastic measure which should be employed with caution. (
Victory Valley Union High School District v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County
(2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1121, 1158-1159.) Misuse of the discovery process includes the failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery or disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (CCP § 2023.010(d) and (g).) Dismissal is a proper sanction to punish the failure to comply with a rule or an order only if the court's authority cannot be vindicated through the imposition of a less severe alternative. (
Rail Services of America v. State Comp. Ins. Fund
(2003) 110 Cal. App. 4th 323, 331.)
Evidence or issue sanctions may be imposed only after parties violated discovery orders compelling further responses, except in exceptional circumstances, including where there was sufficiently egregious misconduct regarding a failure to respond to discovery, or a prior discovery order would be futile.
(
New Albertsons, Inc. v. Sup. Ct.
(2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1426.)
Terminating sanctions are authorized where the evidence shows that less severe sanctions will not be successful in compelling discovery responses. (
Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem
(2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-80.)
Analysis
In their moving papers, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants failed to provide certain documents during discovery destroyed certain documents in violation of discovery statutes. More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to provide:
·
Emails from Afton concerning the Premises and the instant lawsuit; and
·
Any communications between Herskowitz and Afton.
(Moving Papers, 2:25-28.)
Further, Plaintiffs contend that after sending a notice of impending litigation and a Notice of Preservation of Evidence to Defendants in July of 2020, Defendants were on notice to preserve any preserve any evidence. (Moving Papers, 2:18-20.)
Upon opposition Defendants counter, arguing that internal emails from Afton were produced. Defendants also argue that Herskowitzs WhatsApp messages were produced as well. Attached to the opposition papers, Defendants provide several email chains and WhatsApp messages. However, there are few internal Afton messages included, and it is unclear who the WhatsApp messages are between. One of the communicators is clearly Herskowitz, but it is unclear who the other party communicating is. (See Declaration of Gregory Kim, hereinafter, Kim Decl., Exh. 1, Bates Nos. 03323 03425.)
Defendants argue that the Motion is meritless, the Court disagrees. Although it is clear that at least some of the documents alleged to have been destroyed are accessible and have been produced, after review, it appears that not all documents requested were produced. Attached to Defendants opposition papers there are five pages of internal emails (see Kim Decl., Bates Nos. 02153-02156) from within Ashton, however, the emails date back to 2017, and Plaintiffs point out that Ashton managed the Premises until August of 2020. Plaintiffs contend that they lodged several complaints regarding the habitability of the Premises, Defendants contention that all internal Ashton emails have been produced is unpersuasive. Moreover, Plaintiffs contend that the WhatsApp messages produced are not between Herskowitz and Afton as requested. At this time, it is unclear who one of the parties is in the WhatsApp communications, the documents provided only identify Herskowitz.
Therefore, the parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding (1) the production of WhatsApp messages between Harold Herskowitz and Afton Properties, Inc. to determine whether these messages were produced and (2) t
he production of all internal emails from Afton Properties, Inc. concerning the subject property and the instant suit.
Conclusion
Plaintiffs Motion for an Order Awarding Monetary and Terminating Sanctions is
DENIED
. The parties are ordered to meet and confer over the following:
·
The production of WhatsApp messages between Harold Herskowitz and Afton Properties, Inc. to determine whether these messages were produced.
·
The production of all internal emails from Afton Properties, Inc. concerning the subject property and the instant suit.
It is so ordered.
Dated: July 9, 2024
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the Superior Court
Ruling
MAYS vs ENNIS
Jul 11, 2024 |
CVRI2306229
MOTION TO FILE A CROSS-
CVRI2306229 MAYS VS ENNIS
COMPLAINT
Tentative Ruling:
GRANT
Cross-Complaint to be filed and served within 5 days.
Ruling
TAE SUNG SHIN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, A BUSINESS ENTITY TYPE UNKNOWN, ET AL.
Jul 16, 2024 |
23STCV30245
Case Number:
23STCV30245
Hearing Date:
July 16, 2024
Dept:
17
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
DEPARTMENT 17
TENTATIVE RULING
TAE SUNG SHIN
vs.
GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
et al.
Case No.:
23STCV30245
Hearing Date:
July 16, 2024
Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend to file a FAC is GRANTED.
On 12/12/2023, Plaintiff (Tae Sung Shin) filed suit against Genworth Life Insurance Company, Hanmi Bank, Susan Cho, Michelle Kim, and John Kim, alleging: (1) breach of life insurance contract; (2) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; (3) breach of bank account contract; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) resulting trust; (6) constructive trust; (7) tortious interference with contractual relations; (8) unjust enrichment; (9) common counts; (10) declaratory relief; and (11) injunctive relief.
On 4/9/2024, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a first amended complaint (FAC).
Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition.
Discussion
Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to file a FAC.
The proposed amendment would clarify existing allegations, would add causes of action against the individual defendants for Elder Abuse, Conversion, and Cancellation of Instrument, and would remove causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty against Hanmi Bank, and for tortious interference with contractual relations against the individual defendants.
The policy favoring leave to amend is so strong that it is an abuse of discretion to deny an amendment unless the adverse party can show meaningful prejudice.
(
Atkinson v. Elk Corp.
(2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.
)
Here, trial is not until 11/10/2025. Plaintiffs motion is adequately supported by a proposed amended pleading and a substantive explanation as to why the new allegations are necessary. Accordingly, the Court finds no meaningful prejudice would result from granting leave to amend.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend to file a FAC is granted.
It is so ordered.
Dated:
July
, 2024
Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
Judge of the Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at
smcdept17@lacourt.org
by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at
www.lacourt.org
. If a party submits on the tentative, the partys email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.
If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.
If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar
.
For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.
Ruling
CLEAR HOMES LLC, A NEW MEXICO LIMITED LIABILITY VS. BRENDAN MICHAEL WEE ET AL
Jul 11, 2024 |
CGC23607972
Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 11, 2024 line 2. DEFENDANT BRENDAN WEE, ERIKA HILTON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS is Off Calendar - Per request of moving party. =(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
JOHN P. MIDDLETON, ET AL. VS ROY LEE, ET AL.
Jul 12, 2024 |
19STCV30580
Case Number:
19STCV30580
Hearing Date:
July 12, 2024
Dept:
20
Tentative Ruling
Judge Kevin C. Brazile
Department 20
Hearing Date:
July 12, 2024
Case Name:
Middleton, et al. v. Lee, et al.
Case No.:
19STCV30580
Matter:
Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
Moving Party:
Marc Rohatiner, counsel for Plaintiffs John P. Middleton and The John
Powers Middleton Companies, LLC
Responding Party:
Unopposed
Notice:
OK
Ruling:
The Motion is granted.
Moving party to give notice.
If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly
encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Marc Rohatiner seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiffs John P. Middleton and The John Powers Middleton Companies, LLC.
The Motion is granted because it meets all requirements of Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362.
Moving party to give notice.
Attorney is relieved as counsel of record for client effective upon the filing of the proof of service for the Court order (form MC-053) upon the client.
If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Ruling
Martinez VS Pinterest, Inc.
Jul 10, 2024 |
Civil Unlimited (Other Breach of Contract/Warr...) |
RG21112456
RG21112456: Martinez VS Pinterest, Inc.
07/10/2024 Hearing on Motion to Continue Motion to Continue Discovery Deadlines; filed
by Christine Martinez (Plaintiff) in Department 20
Tentative Ruling - 07/08/2024 Karin Schwartz
The Motion to Continue Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Motion for Continuance of Discovery
Deadlines; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Christine
Martinez on 06/04/2024 is Granted in Part.
Plaintiff Christine Martinez’s motion to continue the fact discovery deadline is GRANTED IN
PART.
BACKGROUND
On September 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants Pinterest, Inc., Ben
Silbermann, and Paul Sciarra. On April 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint,
alleging (1) breach of implied contract, (2) breach of implied contract (idea theft), (3) unjust
enrichment, (4) conversion, and (5) unfair business practices.
On February 8, 2024, the Court appointed the Hon. James Warren (ret.) as the Discovery Referee
in this action pursuant to the parties’ stipulation. The Court modified the appointment pursuant to
the parties’ stipulation to address Judge Warren’s professional and case management fees on
March 4, 2024. To date, Judge Warren has issued twelve (12) discovery management orders
(“DMO”).
Plaintiff moves to extend the discovery cut-off deadline to allow the Judge Warren to resolve
outstanding discovery issues regarding the production of documents, Person(s) Most Qualified
(“PMQ”) designations, and depositions of percipient witnesses and PMQs. The moving papers
originally requested an extension to July 14, 2024. On Reply, Plaintiff requests an extension to
“mid-August”, but fails to identify a specified date certain. Defendants oppose the motion on the
grounds that there are no remaining discovery disputes, and issues identified in the moving
papers have since been resolved.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff argues that discovery remains outstanding as (1) Defendants must still produce
documents pursuant to various DMOs, and (2) Defendants have failed to designate PMQ
witnesses as ordered by Judge Warren. Plaintiff further contends that Defendants have produced
a large amount of discovery days before the June 14, 2024 discovery cut-off deadline, which
deprives Plaintiff of the opportunity to meaningfully review the documents and question
witnesses as to the import and meaning of such documents as they relate to Plaintiffs’ claims.
Plaintiff further contends that there remain deficiencies as to the production of documents
responsive to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 7-14, 42-43, 46, 53, 79, 81 and 247.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
RG21112456: Martinez VS Pinterest, Inc.
07/10/2024 Hearing on Motion to Continue Motion to Continue Discovery Deadlines; filed
by Christine Martinez (Plaintiff) in Department 20
(Reply at pp. 4-5.)
Plaintiff argues that Defendants have failed to designate PMQ witnesses as to PMQ Topics 3, 11,
15, and 26, pursuant to DMO No. 8. (Reply at p. 6.) Plaintiff further argues that there remain
issues regarding the depositions of Defendant Silbermann and Jacob Jessick as PMQ designees
on their respective PMQ topics. (Reply at pp. 7-8.)
Defendants’ Opposition, filed on June 26, 2024 (after the close of the discovery deadline)
contends that since Plaintiff filed the motion on June 4, 2024, Defendants have provided the
requested discovery. While Defendants argue that the discovery referee proceeding is complete
(Opp. at p. 13), Plaintiff notes that Judge Warren heard argument on June 25 regarding two
discovery issues raised by Defendants and on July 2, 2024, Defendants offered to further meet
and confer remaining further discovery issues. (Reply at pp. 7-8, fn. 7.) Plaintiff represents that
although Judge Warren is out from July 8 – July 29, 2024, he has indicated that he will address
any outstanding discovery issues. (Reply at p. 1.)
The Court finds that Plaintiff has established sufficient good cause to extend the discovery cut-
off deadline to resolve the current outstanding disputes identified in the moving and reply papers.
Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART. The deadline for fact discovery is extended to
August 9, 2024 but only for the Discovery Referee to resolve disputes identified by Plaintiff’s
moving and reply papers. Neither party shall propound any further discovery.
This Order shall not be construed as any decision by the Court on the merits as to the remaining
disputed discovery issues.
If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the
Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.
HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?
THROUGH ECOURT
Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the
scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps:
1. Log into eCourt Public Portal
2. Case Search
3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search”
4. Select the Case Name
5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab
6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling”
7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting
8. Select “Proceed”
BY EMAIL
Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
RG21112456: Martinez VS Pinterest, Inc.
07/10/2024 Hearing on Motion to Continue Motion to Continue Discovery Deadlines; filed
by Christine Martinez (Plaintiff) in Department 20
court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations
to counsel to appear remotely.
BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.
Ruling
FISCUS vs. PATTERSON, et al.
Jul 10, 2024 |
CVCV22-0199210
FISCUS VS. PATTERSON, ET AL.
Case Number: CVCV22-0199210
Tentative Ruling on Motion to Continue Trial Date: This matter involves multiple parties and Cross-
Complaints. Plaintiff is Paula Fiscus. Defendant/Cross-Defendants/Cross-Complainants Gregory G. Gonzales
and Marcia J. Gonzales, Trustees of the Greg and Marcia Gonzales Family 2014 Revocable Trust will be referred
to as the Gonzales Defendants. James Patterson and Patterson Landscape/Yard Manicurist Agency will be
referred to as the Patterson Defendants. The Gonzales Defendants have filed a Motion to Continue the presently
set August 20, 2024, trial date. The Patterson Defendants have joined the motion. Plaintiff has opposed the
motion. Defendant American Contractors Indemnity Company has not filed anything related to the motion and
did not attend the ex parte hearing on June 27, 2024, at which time was shortened to hear the motion today instead
of July 22, 2024, as originally noticed. There is no evidence that the Gonzales Defendants provided notice of
today’s hearing to Defendant American Contractors Indemnity Company. Cross-Defendant Mark Behnke
Construction has also not filed anything related to the motion but did attend the ex parte hearing and is therefore
aware of today’s hearing.
Merits. “To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and
their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.” CRC 3.1332(a). “Although continuances of trials are
disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a
continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” CRC 3.1332(c).
Circumstances that may indicate good cause are:
(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other
excusable circumstances;
(2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;
(3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;
(4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the
substitution is required in the interests of justice;
(5) The addition of a new party if:
(A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial;
or
(B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for
trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case;
(6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence
despite diligent efforts; or
(7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not
ready for trial.
CRC 3.1332(c).
When considering whether to grant a motion to continue, there are several factors that the Court must consider
including:
(1) The proximity of the trial date;
(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any
party;
(3) The length of the continuance requested;
(4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or
application for a continuance;
(5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;
(6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the
need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;
(7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;
(8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;
(9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance;
(10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or
by imposing conditions on the continuance; and
(11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.
CRC 3.1332(d).
The reasons presented by the Gonzales Defendants to continue the trial are that trial counsel has a conflicting trial
schedule and because Marcia Gonzales’s son is getting married the week of trial. In the moving papers, the
Gonzales Defendants note that the wedding date was set prior to the Court setting the Augst 20, 2024 trial date.
The reasons for the Patterson Defendants joining the motion are because counsel has a conflicting trial schedule,
counsel is moving homes in late August, and because the Pattersons have a prepaid vacation from August 26-
September 6, 2024. It is not clear whether the Pattersons’ vacation was set and prepaid when the Court set the
trial date of if the Pattersons planned it after the trial date was set. Plaintiff opposes the continuance on the grounds
that Defendants have failed to show good cause for the continuance, and because Plaintiff will be prejudiced by
a continuance. The prejudice alleged is that a later trial would not allow time for necessary remediation of the
landscaping issues before the next rainy reason. These issues have resulted in significant erosion and flooding.
Plaintiff also argues that the parties stipulated to the August 20, 2024, trial date and all agreed that no further
continuances would be granted absent stipulation. While this agreement did not make it into the Court’s Order
dated April 10, 2024 (which was submitted by the Patterson Defendants), it is clear from the Stipulation that the
parties did reach such a stipulation.
Conflicting trial schedules do not automatically create good cause to continue a trial. Trial counsel regularly have
multiple trials set for the same week. Any attorney who practices in civil law is well aware that not every trial set
actually goes forward as scheduled. No good cause has been presented in that regard. As to the wedding, it
appears the counsel for the Gonzales Defendants did not check with their client prior to agreeing to a trial date.
Had they checked, surely Ms. Gonzales would have pointed out that her son was getting married that week. The
unavailability of Ms. Gonzales due to her son’s wedding may constitute an excusable circumstance under CRC
3.1332(c)(2). Similarly, the Patterson’s vacation could also be such a circumstance, depending on when it was
scheduled.
Regarding the CRC 3.1332(d) factors, the trial date is one month and twelve days away. Trial has been continued
twice before. The first was by stipulation on October 13, 2022. The second was by stipulation on April 9, 2024,
as discussed above. The Gonzales Defendants have requested a continuance to November of 2024 while the
Patterson Defendants have requested 45-60 days. The only alternative means to address the problem that gave
rise to the motion or application for a continuance would be potentially taking witnesses out of order at trial.
Plaintiff may be prejudiced by the continuance. The matter is not entitled to preferential trial setting. Regarding
the Court’s calendar, one of the two civil trial courts will be dark on the currently set date of August 20, 2024,
which reduces the chance that this matter will be assigned to a courtroom for trial. Counsel is not currently
engaged in another trial that causes a conflict and only provides evidence that there are other trials that might
affect counsel’s availability. There is no stipulation for a continuance. The parties previously agreed that no
further continuances would occur absent a stipulation.
Regarding the interests of justice, the Court is in a position of having to weigh how much counsel’s failure to
consult with their clients regarding their schedules should be permitted to affect their client on a personal level.
It is clear that counsel should have done a better job to make sure that the agreed upon trial date worked for all
parties, and not just counsel. This is particularly so when the parties explicitly stipulated that no further
continuances would take place. However, the Court does not feel that it is in the interest of justice to punish Ms.
Gonzales by potentially preventing her from participating in her son’s wedding based on counsel’s failure to
communicate properly. As to the Patterson vacation, it is unclear whether this vacation was set at the time the
trial was set or if the Pattersons scheduled their vacation later. However, the Court does understand the need for
the Pattersons to be present for the trial to present their testimony.
On balance, the Court finds that granting of a short continuance would be in the interest of justice. The Pattersons’
vacation lasts until September 6, 2024. Therefore, the Court intends to continue the trial to Tuesday, September
10, 2024. If this trial date does not work for Plaintiff, the Court will entertain the first available date for Plaintiff.
Should the trial be continued, all discovery deadlines will flow from the new trial date.
However, the Court notes that Defendant American Contractors Indemnity Company was not provided with
notice of today’s hearing. Absent an appearance by Defendant American Contractors Indemnity Company, the
Court will continue today’s hearing to July 22, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 63 as that is the date that was
originally noticed.
Preview
a SUM 110 ON k Sr r 5 SUMMONS f wncouxruseoNir SOLO PARA USO DE 111 CORTEJ C ross C o mp la i nt C TACION JUD C AL CONTRADEMANDA NOTICE TO CROSS DEFENDANT d AVISO AL CONTRA DEMANDADO MADRID FQUIPMENT RENTAL INC a California Corporation SAN R AAADt o Ric SHAW STRUCTURES INC a California Corporation 016 YOU ARE BEING SUED BY CROSS COMPLAINANT BY LO ESTi4 DEMANDAfVDO EL CONTRADEMANDANTE N RMA MA NA EPUTY CONSTRUCTURE INC a California Corporation You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to ffle a wrkten resportse at this court and have a copy served on the cross complainantA letter or phone call will not protect you Your written resporrse must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case There may be a court fortn that you can use for your response You can find these cou tforms and more infortnaHon at the California Courts Online Self Help Center www courtinfo ca gov selfhelp your county law library or the courthouse nearest you If you cannot pay the filing fee ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form If you do not file your response on titne you may lose the case by default and your wages money and property may be taken without further waming from the court There are othar legal requirements You may want to call an attorney right away If you do not know an attorney you may want to call an attorney referral serviceIf you cannot afiord an attorney you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program You ca locate these nonprofft groups at the Cali omia Legal Services Web site www lawhelpcalifomia oig the California Courts OnUne Seff Help Centerwww courfinfo ca gov seftirelp or by contacting your local couR or county bar association NOTE The court has a statutory Ilen tor walved fees and costs o arry settlement or arbitration award of 510 000 or more in a civil case The court s lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case Tiene 30 D AS DE CALENDARIO despu s de que fe enveguen esta citaclbn y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por esqrito en esta corfe y hacer que se entregue una copia al contrademandante Una ca ta o una Namada telel6nica no o protegen Su respuesta por escrito tiene que esiar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en a co fe Es posible que haya un formularlo que usted pueda usa para so respuesta Puede encontrar estos lormularios de la corte y n s informacJdn en e Centro de Ayuda de as Cortes de CaJifornia www sucorte ca gov en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que e quede mSs cerca Si no puede pagai la cuota de presenfaclbn pida a secretario de a corte que le d un formulario de exencicSn de pago de cuotas Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempopuede perder eI caso por incumplimiento y a corte le podr quifar su sueldo dinero y bienes sin mSs advertencia Hay oVos requisitos legales Es recomendable que lame a un ebogado inmediafamenie Si no conoce a un abogadopuede Ilamar a un servicio de remisibn a abogadosSi rto puede pagar a un abogado es posible que cumpla con Jos requisitos para obtener servicios legales de gratuitos un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro uede encontrar estos grupos sin ines de lucro en eJ sitio web de Califomia tegaServices www lawhelpcalifornia orgen el Centro de Ayuda de fas Cories de California www sucorte ca gov o oni ndose en contacto co r la corte o e colegio de abogados locales AVISO Por ley a corte tie e derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos porlmponer un gravamen so6re cualquier recuperaci6n de 10 U00 6 m3s de valor recib da mediante un acuerdo o una concesiBn de arbitraje en un caso de der echo civil Tlene que pagar el gravamen de la corte anies de que a coRe pueda desechar e caso The name and address of the court is sr oaT NnMe oF cnsE rroc aa n NoroeB c E nombre ydireccibn de lacorte es an Bernardino Sup Court Centr Ledcor v Constructure 247 West Third Street ClSENUMBER NtimerotlelCaso San Bernardino CA 92415 0210 CIVDS 1516245 The name address and telephone number of cross complainanYs attorney or cross complainant without an attorney is E nombre Jadireccibn y el numero de tel fr no del abogado delcontrademandanfe o del contrademandante que no tiene abogado es Frank Satalino Esq 1299 E Artesia Blvd Ste 200 Carson CA 90746 949 735 7604 DATE Clerk by Doputy Fecha Secretario Adjunfo For proof of service of this summons use Proof of Service of Summons form POS 10 Para prueba de entrega de esta citafibn use el formulano Proof of Service of Summons POS 010 J NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED You are served s L as an individual cross defendant aTuF 2 0 as the person sued under the fictitious name of specify o i oae r 0 d o 3 o on behalf ofspecify under 0 CCP 416 10 corporation 0 GCP 41fi 60 minor CCP 416 20 defunct corporation F 0 CCP 416 70 conservatee ANPta 0 CCP 416 40 association or partnership CCP 416 90 authorizedperson 0 other specify 4 by personal delivery ondate Page t of Y Form ACopted tor Mandarory Use Judidal Co cilol Calfomia SU MMO NS CROSS COMPLAI NT Code dCivil ProceAure 41220 428 60 465 www courtfnlo ca gov SUM 110Rev laly 1 2009 t i SUM 200 A cnse NurneeR SHORT TITLE LGDCOR CONSTRUCTION v CONSTRUCTURE et al CIVDS 1516245 INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE This form may be used as an attachment to any summons if space does not permit the listing of all parties on the summons If this attachment is used insert the foilowing statement in the plaintiff or defendant box on the summons Additional Parties Attachment form is attached List additional partiesCheck only one box Use a separate page for each type of party Q Plaintiff Q Defendant Q Cross Complainant Q Cross Defendant YiHONG LlU ASSOCIATES LTD a Nevada Limited Liability Company MENDENHALL SM1TH STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PROFESSIONAL LLC a Nevada Limited Liability Company and ROES 1 through 100 Cross Defendants Page of Page 1 of t Fa dac mndoptediorMar ryu ADDITIONAL PARTIES ATTACHIMIENT Judicial Caunal of California SUM 200 ARev January20071 Attathment to Summons