Preview
SUPER
F LED
CJURT 0F CALIFORNIA
Michael J. (SBN 208123)
Jaurigue, courigiya OF
N
Barbara DuVan-Clarke (SBN 259268) SANBERNAmu§§Sfifigflyp
Alexander Spellman (SBN 250398)
JAURIGUE LAW GROUP APR 2 5 2022
300 West Glenoaks Boulevard, Suite 300
Glendale, California, 91202
Telephone: (818) 630-7280
Facsimile: (888) 879-1697
BY %’
AL IE
y
Qfl
CEHVANTES, DEPUTY
service@jlglawyers.com
michael@jlglawyers.com
barbara@jlglawyers.com
alexander@jlglawyers.com
Attorneys for PLAINTIFF
JASEN ORTIZ
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
12
JASEN ORTIZ, Case No.: CIVD82010019
l3
l4 Plaintiff, [Assignedfor all purposes ta the Honorable
David Cohn]
15 VS.
PLAINTIFF JASEN ORTIZ’S NOTICE OF
16 EX PARTE APPLICATION AND EX
TLC RESTORATION, INC; and DOES 1
PAR TE APPLICATION REQUESTING
l7
THROUGH THAT THE COURT VACATE ITS
100, inclusive,
RULING OF APRIL 12, 2022 BASED ON
18 THE PARTIES’ SETTLEMENT IN
Defendants. PRINCIPLE; DECLARATION OF
l9 ALEXANDER K. SPELLMAN; EXHIBITS
20 Next Hearing:
Date: August 10, 2022
21 Time: 8:30am.
Dept: $26
22
Trial: None set
Complaint Filed: June l7, 2020
24
25 TO THE HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE
26 ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
27 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that 0n Thursday, April 28, 2022, or as soon thereafter as this
matter may be heard, at 8:30 a.m. in Department $26 of the San Bemardino County Superior Court,
PLT’S NOTICE OF EXPARTE APPLICATION REQUESTING THAT THE COURT VACATE ITS
RULING 0F APRIL 12, 2022 BASED ON THE PARTIES’ SETTLEMENT IN PRINCIPLE
located at 247 West Third Street, San Bemardino, California 92415 the Honorable David Cohn
presiding, Plaintiff JASEN ORTIZ (“Plaintiff”), by and through his attorneys of record, will apply t0
this Court ex part6 for the Court t0 reconsider and vacate its judgment of April 12, 2022
(“Application”).
Plaintiff’s Application is based 0n the California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), Section
473. Specifically, (l) Defendant TLC RESTORATION, INC. (“Defendant”; together with Plaintiff,
“the Parties”) provided additional verified response prior to a mediation the parties attended on 0r
about March 2, 2022 (“the mediation”); (2) the Parties reached a settlement in principle in this matter
at the mediation; (3) due to inadvertent error on the part of Plaintiff’ s Counsel, the motion(s) on which
the April 12, 2022, ruling was based was not properly withdrawn from the Court’s docket, as the
Parties agreed upon as part of the settlement-in-principle, which is, t0 date, still being finalized in
advance 0f Court approval. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff‘s Counsel, receiving and discovering
the April 12, 2022, ruling via mail on April 21, 2022, respectfully requests via this Application that
the Court reconsider and vacate its April 12, 2022, ruling so that the Parties may continue with
finalizing their settlement t0 present to this Court for approval.
This Application is funher based upon the complete files and records in this action, the
following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the following Declaration of Alexander K.
Spellman, Esq, and any exhibits thereto, and upon any oral and/or evidentiary evidence as may be
presented at the hearing on Plaintiffs Application.
Per California Rules of Court (“CRC”) section 3.1204(b), Plaintiff sent proper notice t0
Defense Counsel of the ex parle application, along with a draft 0f the instant motion (identical except
for references t0 CRC section 3.1204 and the notice given). (See Declaration of Alexander K.
Spellman, W 15 — l6, Exhibit 6).
///
///
///
///
PLT’S NOTICEOF EXPARTE APPLICATION REQUESTING THAT THE COURT VACATE ITS
RULING OF APRIL 12, 2022 BASED ON THE PARTIES’ SETTLEMENT IN PRINCIPLE
2
Preview
SUPER F LED CJURT 0F CALIFORNIA Michael J. (SBN 208123) Jaurigue, courigiya OF N Barbara DuVan-Clarke (SBN 259268) SANBERNAmu§§Sfifigflyp Alexander Spellman (SBN 250398) JAURIGUE LAW GROUP APR 2 5 2022 300 West Glenoaks Boulevard, Suite 300 Glendale, California, 91202 Telephone: (818) 630-7280 Facsimile: (888) 879-1697 BY %’ AL IE y Qfl CEHVANTES, DEPUTY service@jlglawyers.com michael@jlglawyers.com barbara@jlglawyers.com alexander@jlglawyers.com Attorneys for PLAINTIFF JASEN ORTIZ 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 12 JASEN ORTIZ, Case No.: CIVD82010019 l3 l4 Plaintiff, [Assignedfor all purposes ta the Honorable David Cohn] 15 VS. PLAINTIFF JASEN ORTIZ’S NOTICE OF 16 EX PARTE APPLICATION AND EX TLC RESTORATION, INC; and DOES 1 PAR TE APPLICATION REQUESTING l7 THROUGH THAT THE COURT VACATE ITS 100, inclusive, RULING OF APRIL 12, 2022 BASED ON 18 THE PARTIES’ SETTLEMENT IN Defendants. PRINCIPLE; DECLARATION OF l9 ALEXANDER K. SPELLMAN; EXHIBITS 20 Next Hearing: Date: August 10, 2022 21 Time: 8:30am. Dept: $26 22 Trial: None set Complaint Filed: June l7, 2020 24 25 TO THE HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE 26 ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 27 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that 0n Thursday, April 28, 2022, or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard, at 8:30 a.m. in Department $26 of the San Bemardino County Superior Court, PLT’S NOTICE OF EXPARTE APPLICATION REQUESTING THAT THE COURT VACATE ITS RULING 0F APRIL 12, 2022 BASED ON THE PARTIES’ SETTLEMENT IN PRINCIPLE located at 247 West Third Street, San Bemardino, California 92415 the Honorable David Cohn presiding, Plaintiff JASEN ORTIZ (“Plaintiff”), by and through his attorneys of record, will apply t0 this Court ex part6 for the Court t0 reconsider and vacate its judgment of April 12, 2022 (“Application”). Plaintiff’s Application is based 0n the California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), Section 473. Specifically, (l) Defendant TLC RESTORATION, INC. (“Defendant”; together with Plaintiff, “the Parties”) provided additional verified response prior to a mediation the parties attended on 0r about March 2, 2022 (“the mediation”); (2) the Parties reached a settlement in principle in this matter at the mediation; (3) due to inadvertent error on the part of Plaintiff’ s Counsel, the motion(s) on which the April 12, 2022, ruling was based was not properly withdrawn from the Court’s docket, as the Parties agreed upon as part of the settlement-in-principle, which is, t0 date, still being finalized in advance 0f Court approval. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff‘s Counsel, receiving and discovering the April 12, 2022, ruling via mail on April 21, 2022, respectfully requests via this Application that the Court reconsider and vacate its April 12, 2022, ruling so that the Parties may continue with finalizing their settlement t0 present to this Court for approval. This Application is funher based upon the complete files and records in this action, the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the following Declaration of Alexander K. Spellman, Esq, and any exhibits thereto, and upon any oral and/or evidentiary evidence as may be presented at the hearing on Plaintiffs Application. Per California Rules of Court (“CRC”) section 3.1204(b), Plaintiff sent proper notice t0 Defense Counsel of the ex parle application, along with a draft 0f the instant motion (identical except for references t0 CRC section 3.1204 and the notice given). (See Declaration of Alexander K. Spellman, W 15 — l6, Exhibit 6). /// /// /// /// PLT’S NOTICEOF EXPARTE APPLICATION REQUESTING THAT THE COURT VACATE ITS RULING OF APRIL 12, 2022 BASED ON THE PARTIES’ SETTLEMENT IN PRINCIPLE 2