arrow left
arrow right
  • MARJORIE DEHEY, ET AL. VS DEFENDANT THE POINT AT BEVERLY HILLS INC., ET AL Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (General Jurisdiction) document preview
  • MARJORIE DEHEY, ET AL. VS DEFENDANT THE POINT AT BEVERLY HILLS INC., ET AL Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (General Jurisdiction) document preview
						
                                

Preview

Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 10/01/2021 04:26 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by S. Watson,Deputy Clerk Emanuel D. Zola (SBN 207404) 1 ZOLA, WEGMAN & ASSOCIATES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2 6235 Van Nuys Blvd. Van Nuys, CA 91401 3 Tel: (818) 782-9529 Fax: (310) 861-1627 4 Email: zola@zolawegman.com 5 Attorney for Plaintiffs, 6 MARJORIE DEHEY, an individual and as guardian ad litem for RYKER (a minor); PAUL OVERACKER, an individual. 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 MARJORIE DEHEY, an individual and ) CASE NO.: 19STCV02006 11 as guardian ad litem for RYKER (a ) Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction minor); PAUL OVERACKER, an ) 12 individual. ) ) [Assigned to Hon. Mark A. Young, Presiding in 13 Plaintiffs. ) SMC, Dept. M] ) 14 v. ) ) PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF COURT ORDER 15 ) RE: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE THE POINT AT BEVERLY HILLS INC., a ) 16 California corporation; QUALITY CONTROL ) RESTORATION INC., a California ) 17 corporation; LB PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ) INC., a California Corporation, Defendant ) 18 ) VICTOR MICHAEL BARBER, an individual, ) 19 and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive. ) ) Complaint Filed: 01/22/2019 20 Defendants. ) First Amended Complaint: 06/11/2019 ______________________________________ ) 21 22 23 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 24 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Court finds that the following cases, 19STCV02006 and 25 21STCV12270, are not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). 26 While there is some cross over in parties, the issues presented in both cases will be unique to the 27 individual cases and as such, there court will not be addressing the identical facts or witnesses, and 28 relating the cases would not save judicial resources. 1 PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF COURT ORDER RE: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE