Document for Robert Elliott vs. Mechanics Bank, a California corporation, as the Successor-in-Interest to Rabobank, N.A., a California corporation, et al.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                1   Matthew S. Kennedy – CSB No. 125620
     MATTHEW S. KENNEDY, A Professional Law Corporation
 2   Post Office Box 1031
     San Luis Obispo, California 93406-1031
 3   (805) 544-5002 / (805) 544-5003
     E-Mail: msk@KennedyLawRealty.com
 4
     Attorneys for Defendant Mechanics Bank,
 5   a California corporation, successor by merger
     to Rabobank, N.A.
 6
 7
 8                        SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
 9                          COUNTY OF MONTEREY – MONTEREY DIVISION
10
11   ROBERT T. ELLIOTT,                               CASE NO. 21 CV 003944
                                                      Assigned to: Hon. Carrie M. Panetta
12          Plaintiff,
13   vs.                                              [PROPOSED]
14   MECHANICS BANK, a California                     JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT
     corporation, as the Successor-in-Interest to     MECHANICS BANK, SUCCESSOR BY
15   Rabobank, N.A., a California corporation;        MERGER TO RABOBANK, N.A.
     RABOBANK, N.A., a California
16   corporation; and DOES 1 - 40, inclusive,
17          Defendants.
18
19
20   TO PLAINTIFF ROBERT T. ELLIOTT AND HIS ATTORNEY(S) OF RECORD:
21           On October 13, 2023 the Court entered its Order Granting the Motion for Summary
22   Judgment of Defendant Mechanics Bank, successor by merger to Rabobank, N.A. Based on the
23   entry of this Order,
24           IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Judgment be entered in favor of
25   Defendant Mechanics Bank, successor by merger to Rabobank, N.A., and against Plaintiff Robert
26   T. Elliott.
27
28

                                                     -1-
                     [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT MECHANICS BANK,
                                SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO RABOBANK, N.A.
 1            IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendant Mechanics
 2   Bank, successor by merger to Rabobank, N.A., as prevailing party shall be awarded its reasonable
 3   costs of suit against Plaintiff Robert T. Elliott in the amount of $4,985.33.
 4            Accordingly, Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendant Mechanics Bank, successor
 5   by merger to Rabobank, N.A., and against Plaintiff Robert T. Elliott in the total amount of
 6   $4,985.33.
 7
 8   Dated:                                             _______________________________
 9                                                      HON. CARRIE M. PANETTA
                                                        Judge of the Superior Court
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

                                                     -2-
                     [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT MECHANICS BANK,
                                SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO RABOBANK, N.A.
 1                                         PROOF OF SERVICE
 2                                 Elliott v. Mechanics Bank, etc., et al.
                                      MCSC Case No. 21 CV 003944
 3
 4   STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY
 5           I am employed in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California. I am over the age
     of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is Post Office Box 1031, San Luis
 6   Obispo, California 93406-1031.My electronic service address is msk@KennedyLawRealty.com.
 7        On October 18, 2023, I served the foregoing document described as “[Proposed]
     Judgment” on the interested parties in this action addressed as follows:
 8
     Nina M. Patane                                          Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert T. Elliott
 9   Andrea C. Avila
     Patane Gumberg Avila, LLP
10   4 Rossi Circle, Ste 231
     Salinas, CA 93907
11   Tel: 831.755.1461
     Email: npatane@pglawfirm.com
12          aavila@pglawfirm.com
13
            The following is the procedure in which service of this document was effected:
14
            BY MAIL: I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing
15          correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal
            Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Carlsbad, California, in the
16          ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is
            presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day
17          after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
18          BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I deposited such envelope, with delivery fees paid or
            provided for, in a box or other facility regularly maintained by UPS/Federal Express, or
19          delivered to a driver or courier authorized by UPS/Federal Express to receive documents.
20          BY E-MAIL: Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and California
            Rules of Court, rule 2.251, I caused this document to be transmitted via e-mail to the
21          e-mail address(es) listed for the addressee(s). No electronic message or other indication
            that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the
22          transmission.
23          Executed on October 18, 2023, at San Luis Obispo, California.
24            I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
     is true and correct.                                                        Digitally signed by Matthew
25                                                                                Scott Kennedy, Esq.
                                                                                  Date: 2023.10.18 16:13:57
                                                                                  -07'00'
26   By: Matthew S. Kennedy                                  /s/ Matthew S. Kennedy (C.R.C. 2.257)
27
28

                                                      -3-
                    [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT MECHANICS BANK,
                               SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO RABOBANK, N.A.