Preview
\y \a
LAW OFFICES OF
PATENAUDE & FELIX, A.P.C.
Raymond A. Patenaude, Esq. (#128855)
Stephanie Boone, Esq. (#160182)
J. F LE D I
Carolyn S. Elliott, Esq. (#335870) sggfij‘m
82$; gggckggaym
"W ‘
‘
Kaden D. Byron, Esq. (#333158)
L»
Nathalia A. Aguirre, Esq. (#337628) AUG 1 J
.
20H
Alison K. Schlick, Esq. (#303871)
9619 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 300
San Diego, California 92123 BY:
W@731m
'
3”"
r
,.,
'1
Tele: (858) 244—7600 Fax: (858) 836—0318
Attorneys for Plaintiff
TD BANK USA, N.A. TD BANK
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER
11 TD BANK USA, N.A., Case N0. CIVSBZI 17961
S Plamnff’
306
NOTICE 0F HEARING
12
AFC
336-631
V- Date: September 14, 2022
LAW
SUITE
93123 (333)
13
HEIDI N RAYO, Time: 9:00 AM
FELIX,
Dept: 516
AT
DRIVE,
CA EAR: 14
and DOES 1 through 15, inclusive,
& Defendant(s).
DIEM:
15
ATTORNEYS
PATENAXIDE
SAN
{83332447660
16
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on in the above entitled Court.
mm
The Court ordered the following:
9619 TEE: 17
1. An Order to Show Cause hearing will be held on September 14, 2022, at 9:00 AM, in
18
Department/Division Sl6, of the above-entitled Court.
19 2. Plaintiff to give notice.
20 Respectfully submitted,
Dated: August 10, 2022 PATENAUDE & FELIX, APC
21
\
0f ' VILM
\_
\_
‘s‘ t {
22 By: ¥
Kaden D. Byron, Esq. ‘
23 Attorneys for Plaintiff
24
25
26
27
28
1
NOTICE OF HEARING
P&F File No. 20.41070
CA_97D Ntc of Hearing
$59
$600
@«aowssl
€§§$§§§CBQA §T‘
¢ $1}? ©®
Qy
\r \a
Related Content
in San Bernardino County
Case
Print
Jul 15, 2024 |
Wilfred J Schneider, Jr.
|
Rule 3.740 Collections $10,000 or Less Limited |
Rule 3.740 Collections $10,000 or Less Limited |
CIVSB2422674
Case
Capital One N.a. -v- Verdin Print
Jul 16, 2024 |
. TBD |
Rule 3.740 Collections $10,000 or Less Limited |
Rule 3.740 Collections $10,000 or Less Limited |
CIVSB2422834
Case
OPORTUN, INC -v- Campos Gonzalez Print
Jul 12, 2024 |
Charlie L Hill, Jr. |
Rule 3.740 Collections $10,000 or Less Limited |
Rule 3.740 Collections $10,000 or Less Limited |
CIVSB2422560
Ruling
Synchrony Bank vs Dianna Rodriguez
Jul 24, 2024 |
23CV-03604
23CV-03604 Synchrony Bank v. Dianna Rodriguez
Motion for Order that Requests for Admission be deemed admitted
Appearance required. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of the
court at (209) 725-4111 to seek permission and arrange for a remote appearance.
Ruling
JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. vs. Tucker, Deram K
Aug 05, 2024 |
S-CV-0051944
S-CV-0051944 JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. vs. Tucker, Deram K
** NOTE: telephonic appearances are strongly encouraged
Appearance required. Complaint is not at issue - Need responsive pleading,
default or dismissal as to Defendant(s): Tucker, Deram K
Additionally, no proof of service has been filed as to Defendant(s): Tucker,
Deram K
Ruling
PMIG FINANCIAL, LLC VS. CHRISTINA RANGEL ET AL
Jul 23, 2024 |
CGC17559532
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Tuesday, July 23, 2024, Line 1. PLAINTIFF PMIG FINANCIAL, LLC's HEARING ON CLAIM OF EXEMPTION. Continued to August 6, 2024 on the court's motion. =(302/CK)
Ruling
DISCOVER BANK vs CERVANTES
Jul 27, 2024 |
Frank Anthony Moschetti |
CVCO2300997
DISCOVER BANK VS MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
CVCO2300997
CERVANTES FOR CAROLINA CERVANTES
Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling will be issued.
Ruling
DISCOVER BANK vs FERNANDEZ, MANUEL
Jul 25, 2024 |
CV-23-006622
CV-23-006622 – DISCOVER BANK vs FERNANDEZ, MANUEL – Plaintiff Discover Bank’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings – GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, and unopposed.
The Court GRANTS the request to take judicial notice of the answer and complaint filed in this case. The answer admits all allegations in the complaint as true and does not assert any affirmative defenses.
Based on the pleadings, the Court finds that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute causes of action against the defendant, and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438(c)(1)(A).) Defendant, who did not oppose this motion, has not given the Court any reason to grant leave to amend. (Cf. Today's IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1176, reh'g denied (Oct. 25, 2022), review denied (Jan. 18, 2023).)
Consequently, the unopposed motion is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Court will sign the proposed order and the proposed judgment submitted by Plaintiff. Court trial date to be vacated.
Due to the interruption of telephone service as a result of an outage, any party requesting a hearing must make the request via email to the court clerk. If V-Court is not available and an in-person appearance is not possible, appearance must be via Zoom. Sign-up information for Zoom will be available on the court’s website.
Ruling
Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc., vs. Castro
Jul 24, 2024 |
23CVG-00362
CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC., VS. CASTRO
Case Number: 23CVG-00362
Tentative Ruling on Motion for Terminating Sanctions: Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. moves
for terminating sanctions by striking Defendant Vincent Castro’s answer. Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the
amount of $1,572.75 for each motion.
Procedural Defect: As a procedural matter, this motion was served both via mail and email on May 9, 2024, and
set for a hearing date of June 7, 2024. CCP § 1005(b) requires all moving papers be served 16 court days before
the hearing. This notice period is extended by five calendar days if the motion is served by mail. Id. For service
by email, the notice period is extended by two court days. CCP § 1010.6(a)(3). This timeframe is calculated by
counting backwards from the hearing date but excluding the hearing date. CCP § 12c.
Starting with the June 7, 2024, hearing date and counting backwards 16 court days (excluding the Court holiday
of May 27, 2024) then five calendar days for out of state mailing this matter should have been served by mail no
later than, May 4, 2024. For email the last day to serve the motion was April 24, 2024. The motion was served
on May 7, 2024, and was untimely under either calculation. Based on insufficient statutory notice, the motion is
denied.
Merits of Motion: Even if the motion had been timely noticed, terminating sanctions are not warranted.
Terminating sanctions are a “drastic penalty and should be used sparingly.” Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract
Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604. A terminating sanction should not generally be
imposed by the court until less severe sanctions have been attempted and were unsuccessful. Id. No justification
has been provided as to why terminating sanctions are appropriate in this context instead of lesser evidentiary or
issue sanctions. Without additional evidence, terminating sanctions would be premature.
The motion is DENIED. A proposed order was lodged with the Court which will be modified to reflect the
denial.
Review Hearing: This matter is also on calendar for review regarding trial re-setting. The Court designates this
matter as a Plan II case and intends on setting it for trial no later than October 15, 2024. An appearance is
necessary on today’s calendar to discuss available trial dates.
Ruling
Value Recovery Group. L.P. vs. Sidebar Legal, PC, et al.
Jul 27, 2024 |
23CV-0201860
ET AL.
Case Number: 23CV-0201860
Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal: An Order to Show Cause Re:
Dismissal (“OSC”) issued on June 24, 2024, pursuant to Gov’t Code § 68608(b) to Plaintiff and
Plaintiff’s Counsel for failure to appear at the June 17, 2024, hearing as ordered on February 20,
2024. No response to the OSC has been filed. The Court previously sanctioned Plaintiff and
Counsel for failure to timely serve the parties. The parties have not been served. The sanctions
have not been paid. It appears Plaintiff has abandoned this action and lesser sanctions would not
be effective. The Court DISMISSES this action. The clerk is instructed to prepare a separate
Order of Dismissal. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
******************************************************************************
9:00 a.m. Review Hearings
******************************************************************************
Ruling
Sierra Central Credit Union vs. Goodwin
Jul 23, 2024 |
23CVG-00253
SIERRA CENTRAL CREDIT UNION VS. GOODWIN
Case Number: 23CVG-00253
This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of bankruptcy. Plaintiff filed a Case Management Statement
informing the Court that the stay is still in effect. The matter is continued to Tuesday, January 23, 2025 at 9:00
a.m. in Department 63 for status of bankruptcy. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
Document
OPORTUN, INC -v- Martinez Print
Jul 16, 2024 |
Tanada, Stephanie |
Rule 3.740 Collections $10,000 or Less Limited |
Rule 3.740 Collections $10,000 or Less Limited |
CIVSB2422781
Document
Bank Of America N.a. -v- Robledo Print
Jul 12, 2024 |
Stephanie Thornton-Harris |
Rule 3.740 Collections $10,000 or Less Limited |
Rule 3.740 Collections $10,000 or Less Limited |
CIVSB2422569
Document
OPORTUN, INC -v- Campos Gonzalez Print
Jul 12, 2024 |
Charlie L Hill, Jr. |
Rule 3.740 Collections $10,000 or Less Limited |
Rule 3.740 Collections $10,000 or Less Limited |
CIVSB2422560
Preview
\y \a LAW OFFICES OF PATENAUDE & FELIX, A.P.C. Raymond A. Patenaude, Esq. (#128855) Stephanie Boone, Esq. (#160182) J. F LE D I Carolyn S. Elliott, Esq. (#335870) sggfij‘m 82$; gggckggaym "W ‘ ‘ Kaden D. Byron, Esq. (#333158) L» Nathalia A. Aguirre, Esq. (#337628) AUG 1 J . 20H Alison K. Schlick, Esq. (#303871) 9619 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, California 92123 BY: W@731m ' 3”" r ,., '1 Tele: (858) 244—7600 Fax: (858) 836—0318 Attorneys for Plaintiff TD BANK USA, N.A. TD BANK SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER 11 TD BANK USA, N.A., Case N0. CIVSBZI 17961 S Plamnff’ 306 NOTICE 0F HEARING 12 AFC 336-631 V- Date: September 14, 2022 LAW SUITE 93123 (333) 13 HEIDI N RAYO, Time: 9:00 AM FELIX, Dept: 516 AT DRIVE, CA EAR: 14 and DOES 1 through 15, inclusive, & Defendant(s). DIEM: 15 ATTORNEYS PATENAXIDE SAN {83332447660 16 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on in the above entitled Court. mm The Court ordered the following: 9619 TEE: 17 1. An Order to Show Cause hearing will be held on September 14, 2022, at 9:00 AM, in 18 Department/Division Sl6, of the above-entitled Court. 19 2. Plaintiff to give notice. 20 Respectfully submitted, Dated: August 10, 2022 PATENAUDE & FELIX, APC 21 \ 0f ' VILM \_ \_ ‘s‘ t { 22 By: ¥ Kaden D. Byron, Esq. ‘ 23 Attorneys for Plaintiff 24 25 26 27 28 1 NOTICE OF HEARING P&F File No. 20.41070 CA_97D Ntc of Hearing $59 $600 @«aowssl €§§$§§§CBQA §T‘ ¢ $1}? ©® Qy \r \a