On September 07, 2021 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Novalk, Llc,
and
Cirit, Denis Baran,
Cirit, Fatma Handan,
Cirit, Semih,
C-Tech, Inc,
Does 1-100,
Kim, Yun Kyung,
Kyung, Yun,
Nc Queen, Inc.,
Sargent, Sarina Berna,
for Other Real Property Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
M‘k.‘
A
No
AWN
FEB——1 2022
v
gt?
BY
CUAUHTEMOC m .
EPUTY
\OOOQQUI
i'yiT/i
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Q SCANKEE‘
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNANDINO, JUSTICE CENTER
IO
NUVALK, LLC, ) Case N0: CIVSB2122277
)
)
)
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
)
13 VS. )
) PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
14
SEMIH CIRIT; FATMA HANDAN CIRIT; )
15
DENIS BARAN CIRIT; SARINA BERNA g
SARGENT; C-TECH, INC.; NC QUEEN, INC.; )
16 YUN KYUNG; and DOES 1-100, inclusive. )
)
17 )
Defendants. )
18 )
19
20 TO PLAINTIFF NOVALK, LLC AND TO ITS ATTORNEY OF RECORD:
NOVALK, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint came on
The Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff
J the
Ix)
I
regularly for hearing on January 27, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in Department S32 of the above-entitled court,
v n. wk": "x‘JiH‘mi l. Schncidcr, Jr. presiding. Edward S. Wallace, Esq. appeared on behalf ofDefendants
|
1
t
V
x
SEMIH CIRIT; FATIMA HANDAN CIRIT; DENIS BARAN CIRIT; SARINA
and moving parties
25
BERNA SARGENT; C—TECH, INC., NC QUEEN, INC; and YUN KYUNG KIM, improperly sued as
26
27
28
Page 1
PW ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
fi
V \r
no appearance by Plaintiff at
was nu opposition filed 0n behalfof Plaintiff and
'
’1 ‘
'1‘
Lin z; L5.~-;L,.¢. 'I'im;
1
the time 0f the hearing.
2
Plaintiff’s lack of opposition and
3 The Court, having considered the moving papers and noting
4 appear at the hearing, orders as follows:
failure to
5
Paragraphs Stricken from Complaint
6
7
from the Complaint as false, and not in conformance with
1. Paragraph 31 is stricken
8
tion ofjoint venturer orfiduciary duty)
California law. (nofacts t0 support allega
9
stricken from the Complaint as false, not in conformance with law,
10 2. Paragraph 36 is
allegation offiduciary duty)
’
3
i
:md ultimately irrelevant. (nofacts to support
atrickcn l‘rom the Complaint as false, given that the Declaration
5. B wgwxph .j‘ is
é}
LLC Defendants. (n0 obligations in
I
J 3'
contains no obligations from Novalk,
to
14
Declaration)
15
4. The word “accordingly” is stricken from Paragraph 46 of Plaintiff” s Complaint as
1 6
false.
17
from the Plaintiff’s Complaint as false, and the second
18 5. Paragraph 47 is stricken
stricken as not in conformance With law.
19 sentence of such paragraph is
c
20 n
Complamt
‘
as irrelevant, glven that
6. Paragraphs 48 and 49 are stricken from the
21 e.
Novalk, LLC has no rights under the Declaration to signag
22
49-52 were repeated) are stricken from
7. Paragraph 52 on Page 7 (paragraph numbers
p) I
l:
th»
Document Filed Date
February 01, 2022
Case Filing Date
September 07, 2021
Category
Other Real Property Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
M‘k.‘ A No AWN FEB——1 2022 v gt? BY CUAUHTEMOC m . EPUTY \OOOQQUI i'yiT/i SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Q SCANKEE‘ FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNANDINO, JUSTICE CENTER IO NUVALK, LLC, ) Case N0: CIVSB2122277 ) ) ) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE ) 13 VS. ) ) PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 14 SEMIH CIRIT; FATMA HANDAN CIRIT; ) 15 DENIS BARAN CIRIT; SARINA BERNA g SARGENT; C-TECH, INC.; NC QUEEN, INC.; ) 16 YUN KYUNG; and DOES 1-100, inclusive. ) ) 17 ) Defendants. ) 18 ) 19 20 TO PLAINTIFF NOVALK, LLC AND TO ITS ATTORNEY OF RECORD: NOVALK, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint came on The Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff J the Ix) I regularly for hearing on January 27, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in Department S32 of the above-entitled court, v n. wk": "x‘JiH‘mi l. Schncidcr, Jr. presiding. Edward S. Wallace, Esq. appeared on behalf ofDefendants | 1 t V x SEMIH CIRIT; FATIMA HANDAN CIRIT; DENIS BARAN CIRIT; SARINA and moving parties 25 BERNA SARGENT; C—TECH, INC., NC QUEEN, INC; and YUN KYUNG KIM, improperly sued as 26 27 28 Page 1 PW ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE fi V \r no appearance by Plaintiff at was nu opposition filed 0n behalfof Plaintiff and ' ’1 ‘ '1‘ Lin z; L5.~-;L,.¢. 'I'im; 1 the time 0f the hearing. 2 Plaintiff’s lack of opposition and 3 The Court, having considered the moving papers and noting 4 appear at the hearing, orders as follows: failure to 5 Paragraphs Stricken from Complaint 6 7 from the Complaint as false, and not in conformance with 1. Paragraph 31 is stricken 8 tion ofjoint venturer orfiduciary duty) California law. (nofacts t0 support allega 9 stricken from the Complaint as false, not in conformance with law, 10 2. Paragraph 36 is allegation offiduciary duty) ’ 3 i :md ultimately irrelevant. (nofacts to support atrickcn l‘rom the Complaint as false, given that the Declaration 5. B wgwxph .j‘ is é} LLC Defendants. (n0 obligations in I J 3' contains no obligations from Novalk, to 14 Declaration) 15 4. The word “accordingly” is stricken from Paragraph 46 of Plaintiff” s Complaint as 1 6 false. 17 from the Plaintiff’s Complaint as false, and the second 18 5. Paragraph 47 is stricken stricken as not in conformance With law. 19 sentence of such paragraph is c 20 n Complamt ‘ as irrelevant, glven that 6. Paragraphs 48 and 49 are stricken from the 21 e. Novalk, LLC has no rights under the Declaration to signag 22 49-52 were repeated) are stricken from 7. Paragraph 52 on Page 7 (paragraph numbers p) I l: th»