On July 10, 2017 a
Points and Authorities Filed - POINTS & AUTHORITIES FILED BY MICHAEL LEROY CASS, PEGGY LEE CASS.
was filed
involving a dispute between
Carrie Teasdale, Betty C,
Carrie Teasdale, Betty C.,
and
Cass, Michael Leroy,
Cass, Peggy Lee,
Does 1-10,
Weaver, Peggy Lee,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
02 19 11 34a Mansour La v AP C 411811 p 4
Aug
r
t
NfANS 3CJ 2 AW GR 7 JP APLC
John F Man sour SBN 204835
2
82 Utica AVenue Suite 15 x
3 Rancl o Cucarnonga CA 91730
Phc ne 9 I 1611
ra 949 941 1811 GLO I Ct O TILL
jt lln r 1 ansfl riau coup com
6 rlttorney for 14 ichael Leroy Cass and
Peggy Lee ass I7efendants
7
8 UPE32IOR COURT C F THE STAT UF C LI G11tIti1TA
9 COUP ITY UF S N BERNAFtDIIwl4
i
E3CTT it C CARRIE TEe SDALE an Case I To CIVDSI 03 00 corzsoliduted wrth
I1 ndividual CIT IlSS17 299Q
12 Plaint ff
MEMC1R i IDUM OF PaIIYTS AND
1 AUTHOR TiES IN SUPPQRT O MOTIOIJ
FC R ANCT UNS AGAINST P I T FF
CHA EL ERC Y CASS an indi idual
14 CCP 128 7
f EGGY LEE CASS an indivxdual and
lS I7 OES I through l0 inc usive
Hearing Date SeptemE r 1 l 20
I6
Defeadat ts Tzme 8 30 a m
Dept S23
17
3ud e Hon Dona d R lvarez
18 MICHAEL LEROY CASS an individua l
amplaint Filed ebruar r 16 2018
1g
Cross Complainant
rs
20
21 3ETT C 31ZRI TEASDALE
an indavidual
2 Cross Defendant
24
r
25 COME 1 W MIGHAEL LER UY CASS at d P GG LEE CASS and submit their
26 1Vlemo andum ofPaints and Authoritie in suppc rt Qf th ir fotion fi r Sar ctions under CCF
7 12 7
28 lll
1
MEMdR TdT7UIN QF POINTS AND AUTHtJRlTiES IN SUPPORT CJP MOTION FOR SANCT 7NS
Aug 02 19 11 35a Mansour Law APLC 411811 p 5
1 I
2 SI7MMA Z2Y OF AR UNIENT
3 This 128 7 l dlotion is directed at Teasdale s secorad Sation for Sun amary Judg ment set to
be heaxd an September 9 419 Teasdale s first Motion for ummary Judgernent i voking the
sanze general facts a1 d lav was heard and summarily denied by this Cour t on September 11 201
b In h r second vlc tion for Summary Judg r ent Teasdale dc es z ot i voke the standard set out in
7 Sectic n 437c 2 and sets ft rth no newly discovered facts or change af Iaw Bas d fln these
8 glaring deficie ncies it can ar ly l e caz cluded tha Teas ale s Second Motion fcrr Sum nar
Judgment lacks any merit nd is brouglat fox an ixnproper purpcase
10 III
11 STATElYI NT FERTINENT FACTS
12 Teasdale s initial I Z tivn for Summary Juc gement as direete at the c tuet title complair t
13 and after a full brie ng w as heard on September t l 2018 That Motion for S xmmar Judgment in
14 essence argued that Mr Cass did not purchase the subject property located at 5807 Date Ave
15 Rialto CA 92377 from Teasdale and Ivir Cass in act stole the grant deed transferring title The
l i first Motitin for Surnlnary Jud ment was summari y den ied e Cc urt at that time faeznd tha
1 Teasdale o vn 1 lotit ta put forth triable issues af mat rial fact before the Cc urt and therefore
18 Teasdale did nat establish a przma facie argume xt far suniruary judgment c r adjudicatiQ far that
19 matter Therefore at that time t ie Court did not even delve into the detaiked and comprehensive
20 Oppositicrn filed by Mr Cass
21 T ow Teasdale brings a secon i Motion for Surnmary Judgment as to th e same quiet ti 1e
22 omplain anc Set ta be heard an Septernber 9 2019 This secc nd hlc tit n br ssly i ares CCF
3 43 7c f 2 in that it aoes not invoke its le a1 standard as required nd fails to actuall F assert an r
24 ne vly discovered facts or circumstances ar a change af law supparting the issues
25 T he Ca art need only Iook at the Teasdale s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts
26 filed in conjunctian with lier second Motion far SUmmary Juc rnent for pcuported additions t r
27 char es as c mpa rec to her first Mc tion for Sut r mary Judgment as set fc rth below
2 i
P tGMURANDLM C7P P INTS AN 7 AUTH RITtES IN S JFPC RT t7F R90TL 3N FOR S dCT1flNS
Document Filed Date
August 02, 2019
Case Filing Date
July 10, 2017
Category
Breach of Contract/Warranty
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
02 19 11 34a Mansour La v AP C 411811 p 4 Aug r t NfANS 3CJ 2 AW GR 7 JP APLC John F Man sour SBN 204835 2 82 Utica AVenue Suite 15 x 3 Rancl o Cucarnonga CA 91730 Phc ne 9 I 1611 ra 949 941 1811 GLO I Ct O TILL jt lln r 1 ansfl riau coup com 6 rlttorney for 14 ichael Leroy Cass and Peggy Lee ass I7efendants 7 8 UPE32IOR COURT C F THE STAT UF C LI G11tIti1TA 9 COUP ITY UF S N BERNAFtDIIwl4 i E3CTT it C CARRIE TEe SDALE an Case I To CIVDSI 03 00 corzsoliduted wrth I1 ndividual CIT IlSS17 299Q 12 Plaint ff MEMC1R i IDUM OF PaIIYTS AND 1 AUTHOR TiES IN SUPPQRT O MOTIOIJ FC R ANCT UNS AGAINST P I T FF CHA EL ERC Y CASS an indi idual 14 CCP 128 7 f EGGY LEE CASS an indivxdual and lS I7 OES I through l0 inc usive Hearing Date SeptemE r 1 l 20 I6 Defeadat ts Tzme 8 30 a m Dept S23 17 3ud e Hon Dona d R lvarez 18 MICHAEL LEROY CASS an individua l amplaint Filed ebruar r 16 2018 1g Cross Complainant rs 20 21 3ETT C 31ZRI TEASDALE an indavidual 2 Cross Defendant 24 r 25 COME 1 W MIGHAEL LER UY CASS at d P GG LEE CASS and submit their 26 1Vlemo andum ofPaints and Authoritie in suppc rt Qf th ir fotion fi r Sar ctions under CCF 7 12 7 28 lll 1 MEMdR TdT7UIN QF POINTS AND AUTHtJRlTiES IN SUPPORT CJP MOTION FOR SANCT 7NS Aug 02 19 11 35a Mansour Law APLC 411811 p 5 1 I 2 SI7MMA Z2Y OF AR UNIENT 3 This 128 7 l dlotion is directed at Teasdale s secorad Sation for Sun amary Judg ment set to be heaxd an September 9 419 Teasdale s first Motion for ummary Judgernent i voking the sanze general facts a1 d lav was heard and summarily denied by this Cour t on September 11 201 b In h r second vlc tion for Summary Judg r ent Teasdale dc es z ot i voke the standard set out in 7 Sectic n 437c 2 and sets ft rth no newly discovered facts or change af Iaw Bas d fln these 8 glaring deficie ncies it can ar ly l e caz cluded tha Teas ale s Second Motion fcrr Sum nar Judgment lacks any merit nd is brouglat fox an ixnproper purpcase 10 III 11 STATElYI NT FERTINENT FACTS 12 Teasdale s initial I Z tivn for Summary Juc gement as direete at the c tuet title complair t 13 and after a full brie ng w as heard on September t l 2018 That Motion for S xmmar Judgment in 14 essence argued that Mr Cass did not purchase the subject property located at 5807 Date Ave 15 Rialto CA 92377 from Teasdale and Ivir Cass in act stole the grant deed transferring title The l i first Motitin for Surnlnary Jud ment was summari y den ied e Cc urt at that time faeznd tha 1 Teasdale o vn 1 lotit ta put forth triable issues af mat rial fact before the Cc urt and therefore 18 Teasdale did nat establish a przma facie argume xt far suniruary judgment c r adjudicatiQ far that 19 matter Therefore at that time t ie Court did not even delve into the detaiked and comprehensive 20 Oppositicrn filed by Mr Cass 21 T ow Teasdale brings a secon i Motion for Surnmary Judgment as to th e same quiet ti 1e 22 omplain anc Set ta be heard an Septernber 9 2019 This secc nd hlc tit n br ssly i ares CCF 3 43 7c f 2 in that it aoes not invoke its le a1 standard as required nd fails to actuall F assert an r 24 ne vly discovered facts or circumstances ar a change af law supparting the issues 25 T he Ca art need only Iook at the Teasdale s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts 26 filed in conjunctian with lier second Motion far SUmmary Juc rnent for pcuported additions t r 27 char es as c mpa rec to her first Mc tion for Sut r mary Judgment as set fc rth below 2 i P tGMURANDLM C7P P INTS AN 7 AUTH RITtES IN S JFPC RT t7F R90TL 3N FOR S dCT1flNS