On January 27, 2021 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Brookshire Cory,
and
Brookshire Cory,
Court Call Llc,
for Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence) (General Jurisdiction)
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Southwest District, Torrance Courthouse, Department B
21TRCV00056 January 11, 2022
CORY BROOKSHIRE vs COURT CALL, LLC 10:50 AM
Judge: Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: J. Ahn ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: None
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff(s): No Appearances
For Defendant(s): No Appearances
SEE NUNC PRO TUNC MINUTE ORDER OF 01/11/2022 4:21 PM
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Court Order Re: Plaintiff’s Notice and Motion to Vacate Void
oral Order on July 7, 2021, not to enter in Default Judgment; and August 12, 2021, Order
[Concurrently filed with Declaration by Mr.
Brookshire; Request for Judicial Notice; Request for Court Reporter Services; Proposed Order]
The Court having reviewed the plaintiff Cory Brookshire's above captioned notice filed on
1/4/2022 rules as follows:
Background
On or about January 4, 2022, plaintiff Cory Brookshire (Plaintiff) filed a pleading entitled
“Plaintiff’s Notice Requesting Judge Tanaka to Recuse Himself From This Case Due to the
Conflicts of Interest Between the Court and Defendant CourtCall, LLC” (“Statement”), which
the Court treats as a statement of disqualification pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
170.3.
The Statement Is Not Verified and Unserved
As a preliminary matter, the Statement is not verified pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 170.3(c)(1) (“If a judge who should disqualify himself or herself refuses or fails to do so,
any party may file with the clerk a written verified statement objecting to the hearing or trial
before the judge and setting forth the facts constituting the grounds for disqualification of the
judge.”). In addition, it appears that Plaintiff never attempted to accomplish service as required
by Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3(c)(1) (“Copies of the statement shall be served on each
party or his or her attorney who has appeared and shall be personally served on the judge alleged
to be disqualified, or on his or her clerk, provided that the judge is present in the courthouse or in
chambers.”). For these independent reasons, the Statement is stricken; however, the Court also
addresses the substantive allegations made in the Statement below.
Minute Order Page 1 of 6
Document Filed Date
January 11, 2022
Case Filing Date
January 27, 2021
Category
Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence) (General Jurisdiction)
Status
Court Finding - (Granted) 03/25/2022
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Southwest District, Torrance Courthouse, Department B 21TRCV00056 January 11, 2022 CORY BROOKSHIRE vs COURT CALL, LLC 10:50 AM Judge: Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka CSR: None Judicial Assistant: J. Ahn ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: None Deputy Sheriff: None APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff(s): No Appearances For Defendant(s): No Appearances SEE NUNC PRO TUNC MINUTE ORDER OF 01/11/2022 4:21 PM NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Court Order Re: Plaintiff’s Notice and Motion to Vacate Void oral Order on July 7, 2021, not to enter in Default Judgment; and August 12, 2021, Order [Concurrently filed with Declaration by Mr. Brookshire; Request for Judicial Notice; Request for Court Reporter Services; Proposed Order] The Court having reviewed the plaintiff Cory Brookshire's above captioned notice filed on 1/4/2022 rules as follows: Background On or about January 4, 2022, plaintiff Cory Brookshire (Plaintiff) filed a pleading entitled “Plaintiff’s Notice Requesting Judge Tanaka to Recuse Himself From This Case Due to the Conflicts of Interest Between the Court and Defendant CourtCall, LLC” (“Statement”), which the Court treats as a statement of disqualification pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3. The Statement Is Not Verified and Unserved As a preliminary matter, the Statement is not verified pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3(c)(1) (“If a judge who should disqualify himself or herself refuses or fails to do so, any party may file with the clerk a written verified statement objecting to the hearing or trial before the judge and setting forth the facts constituting the grounds for disqualification of the judge.”). In addition, it appears that Plaintiff never attempted to accomplish service as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3(c)(1) (“Copies of the statement shall be served on each party or his or her attorney who has appeared and shall be personally served on the judge alleged to be disqualified, or on his or her clerk, provided that the judge is present in the courthouse or in chambers.”). For these independent reasons, the Statement is stricken; however, the Court also addresses the substantive allegations made in the Statement below. Minute Order Page 1 of 6