Preview
Filing # 201722282 E-Filed 07/01/2024 05:01:55 PM
FORM 1.997. CIVIL COVER SHEET
The civil cover sheet and the information contained in it neither replace nor supplement the filing
and service of pleadings or other documents as required by law. This form must be filed by the
plaintiff or petitioner with the Clerk of Court for the purpose of reporting uniform data pursuant
to section 25.075, Florida Statutes. (See instructions for completion.)
I CASE STYLE
IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR PUTNAM COUNTY, FLORIDA
Mortgage Assets Management Llc
Plaintiff Case #
Judge
VS.
Carrol Dean Eason, Unknown Spouse Of Carrol Dean Eason, United States Of America
Department Of Housing And, Unknown Tenant 1, Unknown Tenant 2
Defendant
I. AMOUNT OF CLAIM
Please indicate the estimated amount of the claim, rounded to the nearest dollar. The estimated amount of
the claim is requested for data collection and clerical processing purposes only. The amount of the claim
shall not be used for any other purpose.
C1 $8,000 or less
0 $8,001 - $30,000
$30,001- $50,000
1 $50,001- $75,000
1 $75,001 - $100,000
Oi over $100,000.00
Til. TYPE OF CASE (If the case fits more than one type of case, select the most
definitive category.) If the most descriptive label is a subcategory (is indented under a broader
category), place an x on both the main category and subcategory lines.
Electronically Filed Putnam Case # 2024000213CAAXMX 07/01/2024 05:01:55 PM
CIRCUIT CIVIL
Oj Condominium
O Contracts and indebtedness
0 Eminent domain
CO Auto negligence
O Negligence—other
CO Business governance
CO Business torts
0 Environmental/Toxic tort
O Third party indemnification
O Construction defect
O Mass tort
O Negligent security
O Nursing home negligence
O Premises liability—commercial
0 Premises liability—residential
O Products liability
& Real Property/Mortgage foreclosure
Oo Commercial foreclosure
& Homestead residential foreclosure
Ci Non-homestead residential foreclosure
O Other real property actions
OProfessional malpractice
0 Malpractice—business
O Malpractice—medical
O Malpractice—other professional
O Other
0 Antitrust/Trade regulation
CO Business transactions
O Constitutional challenge—statute or ordinance
O Constitutional challenge—proposed amendment
CO Corporate trusts
O Discrimination—employment or other
C Insurance claims
C Intellectual property
0 Libel/Slander
O Shareholder derivative action
O Securities litigation
O Trade secrets
O Trust litigation
COUNTY CIVIL
O Small Claims up to $8,000
O Civil
CO Real property/Mortgage foreclosure
-2-
O Replevins
O Evictions
O Residential Evictions
O Non-residential Evictions
O Other civil (non-monetary)
COMPLEX BUSINESS COURT
This action is appropriate for assignment to Complex Business Court as delineated and mandated by the
Administrative Order. Yes J No Xl
Iv. REMEDIES SOUGHT (check all that apply):
& Monetary;
Nonmonetary declaratory or injunctive relief;
O Punitive
Vv. NUMBER OF CAUSES OF ACTION: [ ]
(Specify)
41
VI. IS THIS CASE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT?
O yes
X no
Vil. HAS NOTICE OF ANY KNOWN RELATED CASE BEEN FILED?
& no
O yes If “yes,” list all related cases by name, case number, and court.
Vul. IS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT?
O yes
no
IX. DOES THIS CASE INVOLVE ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE?
0 yes
X no
I CERTIFY that the information I have provided in this cover sheet is accurate to the best of
my knowledge and belief, and that I have read and will comply with the requirements of
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425.
Signature: s/ Zachary Y Ullma Fla. Bar # 106751
Attorney or party (Bar # if attorney)
Zachary Y Ullman 07/01/2024
(type or print name) Date
-3-
Related Content
in Putnam County
Ruling
MURAL MEDIA, LLC 401K PLAN VS LINDA J. MAULTSBY
Jul 29, 2024 |
23STCV25637
Case Number:
23STCV25637
Hearing Date:
July 29, 2024
Dept:
47
Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE:
July 29, 2024
TRIAL DATE:
NOT SET
CASE:
Mural Media, LLC 401k Plan v. Linda J. Maultsby, et al.
CASE NO.:
23STCV25637
DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
MOVING PARTY
: Defendant Linda J. Maultsby,
in pro per
RESPONDING PARTY(S)
: Plaintiff Mural Media LLC 401k Plan
CASE HISTORY
:
·
10/20/23: Complaint filed.
·
06/11/24: First Amended Complaint filed.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
This is an unlawful detainer action. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant refused to permit an inspection of her rental unit which was necessary for Plaintiff to complete a sale of the property to a third party.
Defendant Linda J. Maultsby demurs to the First Amended Complaint in its entirety.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendants Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED
without
leave to amend pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(c).
The Court enters an interlocutory judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 597 that no trial of any other issues in this matter shall be had until final determination of the action titled
Mural Media, LLC 401k Plan v. Linda J. Maultsby
LASC Case No. 23STCV21301.
//
//
DISCUSSION:
Defendant Linda J. Maultsby demurs to the First Amended Complaint in its entirety.
Legal Standard
A demurrer tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (
Hahn v. Mirda
(2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (
Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power
(2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (
Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co.
(2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (
SKF Farms v. Superior Court
(1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action. (
Hahn, supra
, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 747.) The ultimate facts alleged in the complaint must be deemed true, as well as all facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged. (
Marshall v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
(1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1403; see also
Shields v. County of San Diego
(1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 103, 133 [stating, [o]n demurrer, pleadings are read liberally and allegations contained therein are assumed to be true].) This rule of liberal construction means that the reviewing court draws inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant. (
Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist.
(2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.) There is no meet and confer requirement for a demurrer in an action for unlawful detainer. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(d).)
Requests for Judicial Notice
Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of (1) the Complaint in the action entitled
Mural Media LLC 401k Plan v. Maultsby
, LASC Case No. 23STCV21301 filed September 1, 2023 (hereafter, the First Action); (2) the First Amended Complaint in that same action filed March 14, 2024; (3) Defendants Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint in that action; (4) Defendants Request for Judicial Notice in support of her demurrer to that action; and (5) the Courts May 13, 2024 Ruling sustaining Defendants demurrer without leave to amend. Defendant also requests, in support of her reply, that the Court take judicial notice of this demurrer. Defendants requests are GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d) (court records).
Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the Notice of Appeal filed on July 16, 2024 in the First Action. Plaintiffs request is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d) (court records).
//
Res Judicata & Abatement
Defendant demurs to the First Amended Complaint on the grounds that res judicata and collateral estoppel bar any unlawful detainer claims grounded in the two Notices attached to the First Amended Complaint. However, although Defendant references the doctrine of issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel, her arguments only address
claim
preclusion, also known as res judicata. The Court therefore refuses to consider Defendants collateral estoppel contention and will confine its analysis to res judicata.
In determining the validity of a res judicata plea, the questions to be resolved are (1) whether the claim decided in the prior adjudication is identical to the one in the current action; (2) whether there was a final judgment on the merits in the previous adjudication; and (3) whether the party against whom the plea is asserted a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication. (
Bernhard v. Bank of Am. Nat. Tr. & Sav. Assn
(1942) 19 Cal.2d 807, 813.)
The First Action, filed on September 1, 2023, originally alleged a single cause of action for unlawful detainer premised on a Three-Day Notice to Quit allegedly served on August 24, 2023. Plaintiff then amended the complaint in the First Action to allege unlawful detainer based on (1) an August 24, 2023 Notice to Quit for failure to permit inspection of Defendants unit; and (2) a February 29, 2024 Three Day Notice to Quit following a foreclosure sale. The Court sustained Defendants Demurrer in the First Action without leave to amend on May 13, 2024, on the grounds that the August 24, 2023 notice was defective and could not be cured by the second notice. (Defendants RJN Exh. E.)
In the meantime, Plaintiff filed this action on October 20, 2023, alleging a claim for unlawful detainer premised on an August 11, 2023 Three Day Notice to Quit and an August 24, 2023 Three Day Notice to Quit, both for failure to permit inspection of Defendants Unit. (Complaint ¶ 17, Exh. 2.) Only the August 24, 2023 Notice was attached to the original Complaint. (
Id.
) Thereafter, Plaintiff amended the Complaint to allege unlawful detainer based on (1) an August 24, 2023 Notice to Quit for failure to permit inspection of Defendants unit; and (2) a February 29, 2024 Three Day Notice to Quit following a foreclosure sale, though the text of the Amended Complaint states that the Three-Day Notice was actually given on March 1, 2024. (FAC ¶¶ 24, 28, Exhs. 2, 4.)
Defendant forcefully argues that the First Amended Complaint in this action is asserting the same claims that were asserted in the First Action filed in September 2023, as both Amended Complaints assert two causes of unlawful detainer premised on the same Notices to Quit. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that res judicata cannot apply to bar Plaintiffs claims in this action for two reasons: (1) the judge in the First Action did not rule that the second February 29, 2024 Notice to Quit was deficient, instead ruling that the action could not be pursued for procedural reasons; and (2) the judgment in the First Action is not final, as Plaintiff filed a timely appeal from the ruling sustaining Defendants demurrer in that case. (Plaintiffs RJN Exh. 1.) Neither argument saves Plaintiffs action from demurrer.
Contrary to Plaintiffs contentions, the Court in the First Action made a ruling on the merits of that action, sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissing the action. (Exh E, Minute Order in Case No. 23STCV21301, entered May 13, 2024, p. 3.) The bases for the Order were twofold. First, the Court held the first August 24, 2023 Notice to Quit constituted invalid notice because it failed to identify the real party in interest and could not provide a legally valid foundation for the unlawful detainer action. Second, the Court in the First Action found that the unlawful detainer action was fatally flawed in that it could not be grounded on a subsequent notice to quit served as a substitute for the prior defective notice. (Exh E, May 13, 2024 Minute Order in Case No. 23STCV21301, p. 3.) These are rulings invalidating the First Action on the merits because of its improper reliance on the two attached Notices to Quit. As these are the same Notices to Quit attached to the Complaint in this action, the prior ruling acts as a bar to re-litigation of these claims in this case.
The Court finds greater force in Plaintiffs argument that finality is lacking. A judgment is not final for res judicata purposes until appeals have been exhausted
or
the time to appeal has expired. (
Franklin & Franklin v. 7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising
(2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1171.) In reply, Defendant concedes that the judgment was not final, but argues that, in any event, the Court should abate this action pending resolution of that appeal because the First Action concerns the same issues. The Court concurs. A plea in abatement, without disputing the justness of plaintiff's claim, objects to the place, mode, or time of asserting it and requires pro hac vice that the judgment be given for the defendant, leaving it open to renew the suit in another place, or form, or at another time. (
V & P Trading Co. v. United Charter, LLC
(2012) 212 Cal. App. 4th 126, 133 [citation omitted].) The proper mode of abatement in such a case is a stay of the action that may be lifted if and when the reason for abatement dissipates. (
People ex rel. Garamendi v. American Autoplan, Inc.
(1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 760, 771 [Where abatement is required, the second action should be stayed, not dismissed.]; see also
County of Santa Clara v. Escobar
(2016) 244 Cal. App. 4th 555, 565 -568 [discussing supporting authorities].)
Because the First Amended Complaint in this action raises the same issues regarding identical claims as the First Action, which remains pending, the Court will sustain Defendants demurrer without leave to amend pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(c) and enter an interlocutory judgment abating this case until final determination of the First Action.
CONCLUSION
:
Accordingly, Defendants Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED
without
leave to amend pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(c).
The Court enters an interlocutory judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 597 that no trial of any other issues in this matter shall be had until final determination of the action titled
Mural Media, LLC 401k Plan v. Linda J. Maultsby
LASC Case No. 23STCV21301.
Moving
Party
to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 29, 2024 ___________________________________
Theresa M. Traber
Judge of the Superior Court
Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at
Smcdept47@lacourt.org
by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.
Ruling
Axis Group Inc, a California Corporation et al. vs Mann Bros Group LLC, a California Limited Liability Company et al.
Apr 24, 2024 |
STK-CV-URP-2022-0012058
2022-12058 Axis Group Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel x 10 4/25/2024 Defense Attorney Thornton Louis Davidson of Thornton Davidson, P.C. brings a motion to withdraw as Attorney for MANN BROS GROUP, LLC; NIRMAL MANN; MANJINDER MANN; SAKINDER MANN; WILD HAWK INVESTMENTS, LLC; RAMESH BIRLA; YUVSHA, LLC; SHAMINDERJIT SANDHU; JAGNINDER BOPARAI; AND HARJIT KAUR. Having read the moving papers, the court issues the following tentative ruling: Appearances required. To assist the attorneys the court poses the following questions for discussion tomorrow: (1) Why shouldn’t all unopposed motions to be relieved as counsel be granted except that as to defendant RAMESH BIRLA, who apparently was not served with Mr. Davidson’s moving papers?; and (2) If defendant RANESH BIRLA is incarcerated as represented by Mr. Davidson in his Motion to Continue Motion to Relieved as Counsel, why continue the motion to be relieved as to RAMESH BIRLA until June 6, 2024 as the Code of Civil Procedure puts forth methods for serving incarcerated individuals and such service can surely be accomplished well before June 6, 2024? The parties may attend the hearing remotely. To attend the hearing remotely dial (209) 992-5590 and follow the prompts entering Bridge No. 6941 and Pin No. 5564. WATERS 4/24/2024 Directions for Contesting or Arguing the Tentative Ruling: Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing. Any party wishing to contest or argue the tentative ruling must email the court at civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org. that they intend to appear remotely no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. The Department, Case number, Case Name, and party’s name must be in the header of the email. The email must include the Department, Case number, Case Name, Motion, party’s name and email, date and time of the hearing, issues they plan to argue, and that they have informed the opposing party. The party must also notify affected counsel, or unrepresented parties, that they intend to appear, no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. Unless the Court and opposing counsel have been notified, the tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court without oral argument. To conduct a remote appearance, follow the instructions below. There is a dedicated conference bridge lines for Dept. 11B. Call into dedicated conference bridge line at the time set for the hearing. To attend the remote hearing in Dept. 11B: Call into (209) 992-5590, then follow the prompts and use the Bridge # 6941 and Pin # 5564. The courtroom clerk will make announcements and the Judge will call the calendar. Please mute your phones when you are not speaking, and remember to unmute your phone when you are speaking. At this time, we are not able to provide information over the phone. To communicate with the Courtroom Clerk of Dept. 11B, please email questions to civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org, indicating in the title of the email the Department, Case number, Case Name, and party’s name. A Courtroom Clerk will return your email. To ensure the Court has your most recent contact information, if you have not already done so, please register your email address and mobile number on the Court’s website under Online Services, Attorney Registration. (You do not have to be an attorney to register.) We thank you for your cooperation, assistance, patience and flexibility as we maneuver around the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.
Ruling
ASIAN, INC., A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC VS. IMAGE INTERIORS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED ET AL
Jul 24, 2024 |
CGC23609093
Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 24, 2024 line 4. LAINTIFF ASIAN, INC., A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION MOTION FOR JUDGMNT ON THE PLEADINGS is OFF CALENDAR, moot. See July 10, 2023 Lee Declaration. =(501/CFH) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified and the opposing party does not appear.
Ruling
Charles Cox vs Richard Mroczek, et al
Jul 24, 2024 |
23CV02337
23CV02337
COX v. MROCZEK, et al.
CONFIRMATION OF 6/28/24 ORDER TO GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO STRIKE COMPLAINT AND OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF
NONMONETARY STATUS
The court has reviewed plaintiff’s Notification of Objection to and Disapproval of Any
Proposed Order or Other Order: 1) Granting Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Complaint; or 2)
Striking Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff’s objections merely go to the process by
which parties engage on proposed orders; CRC 3.1312 has no impact on the power of the court
to strike plaintiff’s amended complaint and dismiss this action.
The court’s previous order of 6/28/24 granting defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s
amended complaint is confirmed, as is dismissal of this action. Defendants are ordered to submit
a formal dismissal order for the court’s signature.
Page 1 of 2
Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order
incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the
tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in
accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the
prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing (unless the tentative is
simply to “grant”). Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of
sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.
Page 2 of 2
Ruling
HAUT vs BUSH
Jul 24, 2024 |
CVRI2401221
MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
CVRI2401221 HAUT VS BUSH
BY KEVIN BUSH, SEABOARD INC.
Tentative Ruling: Grant motion to compel arbitration and stay action as to these Defendants
pending completion of arbitration.
Ruling
GAETANI REAL ESTATE VS. ZACHARY HOWITT ET AL
Jul 22, 2024 |
CUD23672769
Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 22, 2024 line 5. DEFENDANT ZACHARY HOWITT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS Hearing Required. =(501/CFH) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified and the opposing party does not appear.
Ruling
CAMPBELL, et al. vs HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TR...
Jul 25, 2024 |
Civil Unlimited (Wrongful Eviction Case) |
23CV042566
23CV042566: CAMPBELL, et al. vs HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS
TRUSTEE FOR WELLS FARGO HOME EQUITY ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES
2005-4 TRUST, H..., et al.
07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Strike MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; filed by HSBC BANK USA,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR WELLS FARGO HOME EQUITY
ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES 2005-4 TRUST, HOME EQUITY ASSET-BACKED
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-4 (Defendant) + in Department 16
damages.”
2. Page 18, lines 26-27: “Therefore, Plaintiffs request substantial punitive
damages to be proven at trial.”
3. Page 19, lines 16-17: “Therefore, Tenant Plaintiffs request substantial
punitive damages to be proven at trial.”
4. Page 21, lines 4-5: “Therefore, Tenant Plaintiffs request substantial
punitive damages to be proven at trial.”
5. Page 21, lines 23-24: “Therefore, Tenant Plaintiffs request substantial
punitive damages to be proven at trial.”
6. Page 24, line 28: “Tenant Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to punitive
damages.”
7. Page 25, line 17: “Tenant Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to punitive
damages.”
8. Page 26, line 3: “Tenant Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to punitive
damages.”
9. Page 26, lines 27-28: “Tenant Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to punitive
damages.”
----
If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the
Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.
How Do I Contest a Tentative Ruling?
Find your case in eCourt at https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov/
using “Case Search” or “Calendar Search” (after you log in)
Select the Tentative Rulings Tab
Select "Click to Contest this Ruling"
Enter your name and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue.
Select "Proceed"
You must also notify the department via email (Dept16@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and opposing
parties by no later than 4:00 PM, one court day before the scheduled hearing.
Please provide this information to any opposing parties.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE HEARING/CONFERENCE WILL BE IN-
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
23CV042566: CAMPBELL, et al. vs HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS
TRUSTEE FOR WELLS FARGO HOME EQUITY ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES
2005-4 TRUST, H..., et al.
07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Strike MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; filed by HSBC BANK USA,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR WELLS FARGO HOME EQUITY
ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES 2005-4 TRUST, HOME EQUITY ASSET-BACKED
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-4 (Defendant) + in Department 16
PERSON WITH THE OPTION TO APPEAR REMOTELY.
COUNSEL AND PARTIES MAY APPEAR EITHER IN-PERSON IN DEPARTMENT 16
AT THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING OR BY REMOTELY THROUGH THE
ZOOM PLATFORM. ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 16 IS
BELOW.
Join ZoomGov Meeting
https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16024053017
Meeting ID: 160 2405 3017
One tap mobile
+16692545252,,16024053017# US (San Jose)
+16692161590,,16024053017# US (San Jose)
--
Dial by your location
• +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)
• +1 669 216 1590 US (San Jose)
• +1 415 449 4000 US (US Spanish Line)
• +1 646 828 7666 US (New York)
• +1 646 964 1167 US (US Spanish Line)
• +1 551 285 1373 US (New Jersey)
• 833 568 8864 US Toll-free
Meeting ID: 160 2405 3017
Find your local number: https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/u/afHtSjITt
---
Join by SIP
• 16024053017@sip.zoomgov.com
---
Join by H.323
• 161.199.138.10 (US West)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
23CV042566: CAMPBELL, et al. vs HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS
TRUSTEE FOR WELLS FARGO HOME EQUITY ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES
2005-4 TRUST, H..., et al.
07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Strike MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; filed by HSBC BANK USA,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR WELLS FARGO HOME EQUITY
ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES 2005-4 TRUST, HOME EQUITY ASSET-BACKED
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-4 (Defendant) + in Department 16
• 161.199.136.10 (US East)
Meeting ID: 160 2405 3017
Ruling
DANITA LASHAY FRAZIER, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS ROBERTA STEPHENS VILLAS PRESERVATION, L.P., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.
Jul 31, 2024 |
23STCV30963
Case Number:
23STCV30963
Hearing Date:
July 31, 2024
Dept:
20
Tentative Ruling
Judge Kevin C. Brazile
Department 20
Hearing Date:
July 31, 2024
Case Name:
Frazier, et al. v. Roberta Stephens Villas Preservation, L.P., et al.
Case No.:
23STCV30963
Matter:
Demurrer; Motion to Strike
Moving Party:
Defendants Concerned Citizens of South Central Los Angeles, Inc. and
Roberta Stephans Villas Preservation, L.P.
Responding Party:
Unopposed
Notice:
OK
Ruling:
The Demurrer is sustained, without leave to amend.
The Motion to Strike is denied as moot.
Moving party to give notice.
If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly
encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
This is a landlord-tenant matter, and the Complaint was filed on December 18, 2023.
Defendants Concerned Citizens of South Central Los Angeles, Inc. and Roberta Stephans Villas Preservation, L.P. now demur to the entirety of the Complaint for uncertainty and failure to state sufficient facts.
Because there is no opposition, the Complaint is deemed abandoned. (
Herzberg v. County of Plumas
(2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1, 20.) The Demurrer is sustained, without leave to amend.
Given the ruling on the Demurrer, the Motion to Strike is denied as moot.
Moving party to give notice.
If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.