Preview
RETURN DATE: 12/12/2023 SUPERIOR COURT
AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK J.D. OF DANBURY
VS, AT DANBURY
CHANICE M. RODRIGUEZ A/K/A CHANICE RODRIGUEZ OCTOBER 30, 2023
COMPLAINT
COUNT ONE
holder of an
1) The Defendant, CHANICE M. RODRIGUEZ A/K/A CHANICE RODRIGUEZ was the
nt to
American Express National Bank credit card (the “Account”) that enabled the Defenda
Ss charge items to the Account.
oe for an American
oe 2) The Defendant, CHANICE M. RODRIGUEZ A/K/A CHANICE RODRIGUEZ applied
Bo Express National Bank credit card.
Be oo
CHANICE
3) As the applicant for an American Express National Bank credit card, the Defendant,
M. RODRIGUEZ A/K/A CHANICE RODRIGUEZ provided personal financial disclosures required
by the Plaintiff's application procedure.
4) The Account number issued was xxxxxxxxxx61001.
5) The Account was opened by the Defendant on 10/09/2021.
6) The Account was available to be used by the Defendant from 10/09/2021.
7) The last payment on the Account was made on 01/24/2023.
8) Use of the Account binds the Defendant to the terms and conditions set forth in the American
Express National Bank Cardmember Agreement.
9) By use of said Account, Defendant became indebted in the sum of $28,838.61.
1
10} After repeated demands for payment, Defendant remains indebted in the sum of $28,838.6
which amount remains outstanding.
COUNT TWO
1) The Defendant CHANICE M. RODRIGUEZ A/K/A CHANICE RODRIGUEZ was the holder of an
American Express National Bank credit card (the “Account”) that enabled the Defendant to
charge items to the Account.
2) The Defendant, CHANICE M. RODRIGUEZ A/K/A CHANICE RODRIGUEZ applied for an American
Express National Bank credit card.
3) As the applicant for an American Express National Bank credit card, the Defendant, CHANICE M.
RODRIGUEZ A/K/A CHANICE RODRIGUEZ provided personal financial disclosures required by the
Plaintiff's application procedure.
Ss
4) The Account number issued was xxxxxxxxxx61001.
Als
Ala 5) The Account was opened by the Defendant on 10/09/2021.
ls
We 6) The Account was available to be used by the Defendant from 10/09/2021.
7) The last payment on the Account was made on 01/24/2023.
8) Use of the Account binds the Defendant to the terms and conditions set forth in the American
Express National Bank Cardmember Agreement.
9) By use of said Account, Defendant became indebted in the sum of $28,838.61 which amount
remains outstanding.
10) The Plaintiff regularly generated account statements reflecting an unpaid balance and mailed
them to the Defendant; said statements were neither disputed nor returned.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff claims:
1) Monetary damages.
2) Costs of action.
3) An order on the Defendant for reasonable weekly payments out of sums earned or
to be earned.
4) The amount in demand is greater than FIFTEEN THOUSAND AND 00/100
($15,000.00) DOLLARS.
5) The remedy sought is based upon an express or implied promise to pay a definite
a2
33 sum.
Qa
Al<
Alas
Be
B29
oo
Ee
| have personal knowledge as to
|, Mark A. Sank, the subscribing authority, hereby certify that
nt to pay the costs in this action
the financial responsibility of the Plaintiff and deem it sufficie
a, etur
Of this Writ, with your doings thereon, make due service
<
a Dated at Stamford, Connecticut on October 39,
Zz
pow LL
S
a
Please enter my appearance:
a
o<
De Mark Sank & Associates, LLC
Di =
Ala 666 Glenbrook Road
a Stamford, CT 06906
82 (800) 785-9702
Me
a= Juris No. 421741
For the Plaintiff
oO
Related Content
in Fairfield County
Ruling
CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS INC., VS. JASON JONES ET AL
Jul 12, 2024 |
CGC24612007
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Friday, July 12, 2024, Line 14. DEFENDANT JASON JONES' Motion To Deem Facts Admitted. Continued to July 26, 2024, to be heard on the court's discovery calendar at 9:00 a.m. =(302/RCE)
Ruling
American Express National Bank vs. Conway, Scott
Jul 15, 2024 |
S-CV-0052368
S-CV-0052368 American Express National Bank vs. Conway, Scott
No appearance required. CMC is continued to 10/07/24 at 2pm in Dept. 6.
Complaint is not at issue - Need responsive pleading, default or dismissal as to
Defendant(s): Conway, Scott
Additionally, no proof of service has been filed as to Defendant(s): Conway, Scott
Ruling
MASSACHUSETTS EDUCATIONAL FINANCING AUTHORITY VS ALEXANDER
Jul 12, 2024 |
BC682984
Case Number:
BC682984
Hearing Date:
July 12, 2024
Dept:
71
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
DEPARTMENT 71
TENTATIVE RULING
MASSACHUSETTS EDUCATIONAL FINANCING AUTHORITY
,
vs.
ALEXANDER
.
Case No.:
BC682984
Hearing Date:
July 12, 2024
Plaintiff Massachusetts Educational Financing Authoritys
unopposed
motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement is granted.
Plaintiff is to submit a judgment to this Court within 10 days of this ruling.
Plaintiff Massachusetts Education Financing Authority (MEFA) (Plaintiff) moves
unopposed
for an order to enter judgment because Defendant Alexander L Ross (Ross) (Defendant) defaulted on the terms and conditions of the parties settlement stipulation.
(Notice of Motion, pg. 1; C.C.P. §664.6.)
Background
On November 09, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court for damages in the amount of $25,149.19 to recover the unpaid balance on a credit card account.
(Decl. of Rohan ¶2.)
On March 22, 2022, Plaintiff and Defendant executed a settlement agreement (Settlement Agreement), with the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the agreement.
(Decl. of Rohan ¶3, Exh. A.)
Pursuant to ¶10 of the agreement, if Defendant defaulted under the Settlement Agreement, then Plaintiff could obtain a judgment for the outstanding balance, pre-judgment interest and costs through declaration and order.
(
See
Decl. of Rohan ¶¶3-4, Exh. A at ¶10.)
On February 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion.
As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed by Defendant.
Motion to Enforce Settlement
Legal Standard
C.C.P. §664.6 provides, as follows: If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.
(C.C.P. §664.6(a).)
Disputes regarding the terms of the settlement (or other disputed facts) may be adjudicated on a C.C.P. §664.6 motion on the basis of declarations or other evidence.
(
Malouf Brothers v. Dixon
(1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 280, 284;
Machado v. Myers
(2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 779, 795-796 [stating court may resolve reasonable disputes over terms of settlement agreement but may not modify terms from what was agreed to by parties].)
Discussion
Plaintiff submitted evidence that Plaintiff and Defendant executed a Settlement Agreement that is signed by the parties and contains a provision authorizing this Court to retain jurisdiction under C.C.P. §664.6.
(Decl. of
Rohan ¶2
, Exh. A.)
Accordingly, Plaintiff submitted evidence of the existence of a valid settlement agreement and is therefore entitled to an order enforcing the settlement.
Plaintiffs counsel declares Defendant last made a payment on September 9, 2014.
(Decl. of Rohan ¶4.)
Plaintiffs counsel declares that on March 16, 2023, he last sent a cure letter to Defendant, stating that Defendant had ten days to cure the defect.
(Decl. of Rohan ¶6.)
Plaintiffs counsel declares Defendant did not cure the defect and Defendant has not made any other payments pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
(Decl. of Rohan ¶¶6-7.)
Plaintiffs counsel declares the principal outstanding balance on Defendants account is $10,552.09.
(Decl. of Rohan ¶8.)
Plaintiff requests a judgment against Defendant in the amount of $11,073.93, reflecting a principal balance of $25,149.19, less $14,075.26 in credits for payments made, and $0.00 in costs.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs motion
to enforce the Settlement Agreement and enter judgment against Defendant in the amount of $11,073.93, reflecting a principal balance of $25,149.19, less $14,075.26 in credits for payments made, and $0.00 in costs is granted.
Conclusion
Plaintiffs
unopposed
motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement and enter judgment against Defendant in the amount of $11,073.93, reflecting a principal balance of $25,149.19, less $14,075.26 in credits for payments made, and $0.00 in costs is granted.
Plaintiff is to submit a judgment to the Court within 10 days of this ruling.
Moving Party to give notice.
Dated:
July _____, 2024
Hon. Daniel M. Crowley
Judge of the Superior Court
Ruling
DIMERCO EXPRESS USA CORP. VS CONCORD DISPLAYS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Jul 12, 2024 |
22AHCV00898
Case Number:
22AHCV00898
Hearing Date:
July 12, 2024
Dept:
3
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT
DIMERCO EXPRESS USA CORP.
,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
CONCORD DISPLAYS, LLC, et al.
,
Defendant(s).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO.:
22AHCV00898
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Dept. 3
8:30 a.m.
July 12
, 2024
)
Plaintiff Dimerco Express USA Corp. (Plaintiff) requests a default judgment against defendant Concord Displays, LLC (Defendant) in the amount of $24,630.97. On May 23, 2042, Plaintiff filed a declaration of counsel attaching a settlement agreement which provides for the entry of a stipulated judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. In light of this agreement, Plaintiffs attempt to secure a default judgment is procedurally incorrect. Plaintiff should be moving for entry of a judgment pursuant to stipulation and submit a proposed judgment that reflects its stipulated nature. Accordingly, the hearing on the default prove-up is vacated and the Court sets an OSC re: Dismissal for _____________ in order to allow Plaintiff time to file a noticed motion.
Dated this
12th
day of
July
, 2024
William A. Crowfoot
Judge of the Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.
Ruling
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. VS. XIONGYING CHEN
Jul 11, 2024 |
CGC22601958
Matter on the Law & Motion calendar for Thursday, July 11, 2024, Line 5. PLAINTIFF BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.'s HEARING ON CLAIM OF EXEMPTION. The judgment debtor's claim of exemption is granted. (CCP 704.190.) For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. If the court adopts the tentative ruling, it will execute a judicial council form of order reflecting the tentative. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/RBU)
Ruling
Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc., vs. Castro
Jul 11, 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
TD Bank, N.A. vs. Gurpreet Singh
Jul 10, 2024 |
21CECG01521
Re: TD Bank, N.A. v. Singh
Superior Court Case No. 21CECG01521
Hearing Date: July 10, 2024 (Dept. 503)
Motion: by plaintiff for Judgment on the Pleadings
Tentative Ruling:
To continue the motion to Thursday, August 15, 2024, at 3:30 p.m., in Department
503, in order to allow the parties to meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video
conference, as required. If this resolves the issues, plaintiff’s counsel shall call the court to
take the motions off calendar. If it does not resolve the issues, plaintiff’s counsel shall file
a declaration, on or before Thursday, August 8, 2024, at 5:00 p.m., stating the efforts
made.
Explanation:
Plaintiff did not satisfy the requirement to meet and confer prior to filing the motion
for judgment on the pleadings. Code of Civil Procedure section 439 makes it very clear
that meet and confer must be conducted in person, by telephone, or by video
conference prior to filing the motion. While the parties may utilize written correspondence
to help supplement the meet and confer process, the moving party is not excused from
the requirement to do so in person, by telephone, or by video conference, unless it shows
that the defendant failed to respond to the meet and confer request or otherwise failed
to meet and confer in good faith. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a)(3)(B).) The evidence
did not show a bad faith refusal to meet and confer on defendant’s part that would
excuse plaintiff from complying with the statute.
The parties must engage in good faith meet and confer, in person, by telephone,
or by video conference, as set forth in the statute. The court’s normal practice in such
instances is to take the motion off calendar, subject to being re-calendared once the
parties have met and conferred. However, given the extreme congestion in the court’s
calendar currently, the court will instead continue the hearing to allow the parties to
meet and confer, and only if efforts are unsuccessful will it rule on the merits.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure
section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order
adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk
will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: jyh on 7/8/24 .
(Judge’s initials) (Date)
Ruling
201700491367CUOR Sherwood Valley HOA vs New Mission
Jul 11, 2024 |
Jeffrey G. Bennett
|
Motion to Amend Judgment to Add Additional Judgment Debtors on Alter Ego Theory Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 187 |
201700491367CUOR
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF VENTURA
Tentative Ruling
201700491367CUOR: Sherwood Valley HOA vs New Mission
06/25/2024 in Department 21
Motion to Amend Judgment to Add Additional Judgment Debtors on Alter Ego Theory
Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 187
The morning calendar in courtroom 21 will normally begin between 8:30 and 8:45 a.m. Please
arrive at the courtroom no later than 8:30 a.m. The door will be opened before the calendar is
called.
The Court allows appearances by CourtCall but is not equipped for Zoom. If appearing by
CourtCall, call in no later than 8:15 a.m. If you intend to appear by CourtCall, you must make
arrangements with CourtCall by 4:00 p.m. the day before your scheduled hearing. Requests for
approval of a CourtCall appearance made on the morning of the hearing will not be granted. No
exceptions will be made.
With respect to the tentative ruling below, no notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to
submit on the tentative ruling you can fax notice to Judge Riley's secretary, Ms. Sedillos at
805-289-8705, stating that you submit on the tentative. You may also email the Court at:
Courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov with all counsel copied on the email. Do not call in lieu of
sending a fax or email. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party
appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. If you are the moving party and do not
communicate to the Court that you submit on the tentative or you do not appear at the hearing,
the Court may deny your motion irrespective of the tentative.
Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is not signed at the hearing, the
prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a),
(b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with
the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized.
Tentative Ruling
The Court will CONTINUE the hearing on Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Sherwood Valley
Homeowners Association’s motion to amend the judgment in this action to add Amy Levan and
Japanese Apple Blossom LLC as additional judgment debtors to July 11, 2024, to be heard after
third party Amy Levan’s motion to quash service of the motion.
Analysis
On June 11, 2024, Amy Levan filed opposition papers to the Association’s motion to amend the
judgment. On the same date, she filed a motion to quash service of the Association’s motion to
amend the Judgment on Levan, on the ground that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over
Levan because the service of the Association’s motion on her was deficient. Levan’s motion to
quash service is presently set for hearing on July 9, 2024.
201700491367CUOR: Sherwood Valley HOA vs New Mission
Because Levan’s motion to quash raises a fundamental question as to whether the Court has
personal jurisdiction over Levan for the purposes of ruling on the Association’s motion to add
her as an additional judgment debtor, the Court will rule on the motion to quash prior to ruling
on the Association’s motion. (See, e.g., In re Marriage of Obrecht (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1,
17 [noting “the California rule…that an objection to personal jurisdiction must be finally
determined…before the defendant can litigate any defense on the merits.”].) Accordingly, the
Court cannot and should not hear the Association’s motion to add additional judgment debtors
prior to hearing Levan’s motion to quash.
Preview
RETURN DATE: 12/12/2023 SUPERIOR COURT AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK J.D. OF DANBURY VS, AT DANBURY CHANICE M. RODRIGUEZ A/K/A CHANICE RODRIGUEZ OCTOBER 30, 2023 COMPLAINT COUNT ONE holder of an 1) The Defendant, CHANICE M. RODRIGUEZ A/K/A CHANICE RODRIGUEZ was the nt to American Express National Bank credit card (the “Account”) that enabled the Defenda Ss charge items to the Account. oe for an American oe 2) The Defendant, CHANICE M. RODRIGUEZ A/K/A CHANICE RODRIGUEZ applied Bo Express National Bank credit card. Be oo CHANICE 3) As the applicant for an American Express National Bank credit card, the Defendant, M. RODRIGUEZ A/K/A CHANICE RODRIGUEZ provided personal financial disclosures required by the Plaintiff's application procedure. 4) The Account number issued was xxxxxxxxxx61001. 5) The Account was opened by the Defendant on 10/09/2021. 6) The Account was available to be used by the Defendant from 10/09/2021. 7) The last payment on the Account was made on 01/24/2023. 8) Use of the Account binds the Defendant to the terms and conditions set forth in the American Express National Bank Cardmember Agreement. 9) By use of said Account, Defendant became indebted in the sum of $28,838.61. 1 10} After repeated demands for payment, Defendant remains indebted in the sum of $28,838.6 which amount remains outstanding. COUNT TWO 1) The Defendant CHANICE M. RODRIGUEZ A/K/A CHANICE RODRIGUEZ was the holder of an American Express National Bank credit card (the “Account”) that enabled the Defendant to charge items to the Account. 2) The Defendant, CHANICE M. RODRIGUEZ A/K/A CHANICE RODRIGUEZ applied for an American Express National Bank credit card. 3) As the applicant for an American Express National Bank credit card, the Defendant, CHANICE M. RODRIGUEZ A/K/A CHANICE RODRIGUEZ provided personal financial disclosures required by the Plaintiff's application procedure. Ss 4) The Account number issued was xxxxxxxxxx61001. Als Ala 5) The Account was opened by the Defendant on 10/09/2021. ls We 6) The Account was available to be used by the Defendant from 10/09/2021. 7) The last payment on the Account was made on 01/24/2023. 8) Use of the Account binds the Defendant to the terms and conditions set forth in the American Express National Bank Cardmember Agreement. 9) By use of said Account, Defendant became indebted in the sum of $28,838.61 which amount remains outstanding. 10) The Plaintiff regularly generated account statements reflecting an unpaid balance and mailed them to the Defendant; said statements were neither disputed nor returned. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff claims: 1) Monetary damages. 2) Costs of action. 3) An order on the Defendant for reasonable weekly payments out of sums earned or to be earned. 4) The amount in demand is greater than FIFTEEN THOUSAND AND 00/100 ($15,000.00) DOLLARS. 5) The remedy sought is based upon an express or implied promise to pay a definite a2 33 sum. Qa Al< Alas Be B29 oo Ee | have personal knowledge as to |, Mark A. Sank, the subscribing authority, hereby certify that nt to pay the costs in this action the financial responsibility of the Plaintiff and deem it sufficie a, etur Of this Writ, with your doings thereon, make due service < a Dated at Stamford, Connecticut on October 39, Zz pow LL S a Please enter my appearance: a o< De Mark Sank & Associates, LLC Di = Ala 666 Glenbrook Road a Stamford, CT 06906 82 (800) 785-9702 Me a= Juris No. 421741 For the Plaintiff oO