Preview
Filing # 200337262 E-Filed 06/11/2024 05:49:05 PM
f#: 24-01280
RETURN OF SERVICE
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA
PLAINTIFF LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC; et seq.
vs.
DEFENDANT MERCEDES CARDONA ; et al.
DEFENDANT UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF MERCEDES CARDONA
TO BE SERVED
CASE NO 2024 CA 001221 MF TYPE OF PROCESS COMPLAINT, LIS PENDENS, NOTICE TO
DIVISION HOMEOWNER, STANDING CASE MANAGEMENT
PLAN/ORDER, SUMMONS
I received this process on the 5/13/2024 at 5:15 PM AT ADDRESS 708 PASTEUR LANE
I ( ) served ( x ) not served the within named defendant. WHERE SERVED KISSIMMEE, FL 34759
ON DATE/TIME: 5/14/2024 7:19 PM (OR ATTEMPTED)
( x ) NON-SERVICE: For the reason that after diligent efforts, I could not serve the Defendant identified above at the address stated above.
Military Status: ( ) Refused ( ) No ( ) Yes Branch:
Marital Status: ( ) Refused ( ) Not married ( ) Married ( ) Married, but separated
Mobile Home: No
COMMENTS:
05/14/2024 07:19:00 PM - None per Mercedes Cardona .
I hereby certify that I am over the age of 18, I am not a party to this action and have no interest in the process being served, and I am a Certified Process Server or
Special Process Server in good standing in the judicial circuit/county in which the process was served, and/or am otherwise duly authorized to have served process in
the jurisdiction where process was served.
"Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing document and that the facts stated in it are true." F.S. 92.525
X Notary Not Required Pursuant to FS 92.525
Server Signature / ProVest Case id # 7143075
Rebeca Feliciano - Process Server ID: 448
Title (if applicable): CERTIFIED PROCESS SERVER
Non-Served on 05/14/2024 7:19 PM
Filing # 197588253 E-Filed 05/03/2024 02:05:19 PM
LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
Plaintiff, 9TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
VS. OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA
MERCEDES CARDONA, ct al, CIVIL DIVISION:
Defendants. CASE NO.: 2024 CA 001221 MF
SUMMONS
PERSONAL SERVICE ON AN INDIVIDUAL
IMPORTANT
TO DEFENDANT: UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF MERCEDES CARDONA
708 PASTEUR LN, KISSIMMEE, FL 34759
A lawsuit has been filed against you. You have 20 calendar days after this summons is served on you to file a written
response to the altached Complaint with the Clerk of this Court. A phone call will not protect you. Your written response,
including the case number given above and the names of the parties, must be filed if you want the Court to hear your side of the
case. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case, and your wages, money, and property may thereafter be
taken without further warning from the Court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right
away. If you do not know an attorney, you may call an attorney referrai service or a legal aid office (listed in the phonebook).
If you choose to file a written response yourself, at the same time you file your written response to the Court you must
also mail or take a copy of your written response to the "Plaintiff/Plaintiff's Attorney" named below.
DE CUBAS & LEWIS, P.A. ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
PO Box 5026, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33310
Telephone: (954) 453-0365
Facsimile: (954) 771-6052
Toll Free: 1-800-441-2438
DESIGNATED PRIMARY EMAIL FOR SERVICE
PURSUANT TO FLA. R. JUD. ADMIN 2.516
eservice@decubaslewis.com
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to
participate in a court proceeding or event, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the
provision of certain assistance. Please contact Orange County, ADA Coordinator,
Human Resources, Orange County Courthouse, 425 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 510,
Orlando, Florida, (407) 836-2303, fax: 407-836-2204; and in Osceola County;: ADA
Coordinator, Court Administration, Osceola County Courthouse, 2 Courthouse
Square, Suite 6300, Kissimmee, FL 34741, (407) 742-2417, fax 407-835-5079, at least 7
days before your scheduled court appearance, or immediately upon receiving
notification if the time before the scheduled court appearance is less than 7 days. If
you are hearing or voice impaired, call 711 to reach the Telecommunications Relay
Service.
Non-Served on 05/14/2024 7:19 PM
EACH SHERIFF OF THE STATE:
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to serve the Summons and a copy of the Complaint in this lawsuit on the
above-named Defendant(s).
Dated this 7 day of Mey ,2024
KELVIN SOTO
Clerk Of The Cipcuit Court
COURT &
(SEAL)
(See reverse side)(Vease al reves)(Voir de l'autre cote de)
OF
RK
A1
1
7T10SDeput Clerk
COUNT
IN THE COUNTY/CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
ORANGE AND OSCEOLA COUNTY,
FLORIDA
IN RE: CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN
AND ORDER
STANDING CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN/ORDER
(Streamlined Track)
PURSUANT TO In re: Comprehensive COVID-19 Emergency Measures for Florida
Trial Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-23 (Amendment 12) (April 13, 2021), and Ninth
Judicial Circuit Court Administrative Order No. 2021-04 (collectively the Case Management
Administrative Orders'), this case is before the Court for case management. Based on the
case type of the initial filing in this case, the Case Management Administrative Orders, and
pursuant to Rule 2.545, Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin,, the Court hereby establishes a case
management plan. It is hereby
ORDERED that:
1. COMPLIANCE WITH THIS CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN/ORDER: The parties
shall strictly comply with the terms of this Case Management Plan/Order, unless otherwise
ordered by the Court. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ORDER
WILL RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS. If the parties believe that an alternate
plan is required or more appropriate, then the parties shall meet, confer and agree on a plan
that complies with the time standards set forth in Rule 2.250, Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin.
The parties may submit an agreed upon plan to the division judge for consideration, or set the
matter for a case management conference.
2. ADDITIONAL NINTH CIRCUIT AND DIVISION SPECIFIC GUIDELINES: All
counsel and unrepresented parties shall familiarize themselves and comply with the
requirements of the following: (i) Amended Administrative Order Establishing the Ninth
Judicial Circuit Court Circuit Civil Court Guidelines (AO 2012-03-01); (ii) Amended
Administrative Order Establishing the Ninth Judicial Circuit Courtroom Decorum Policy
(AO 2003-07-02); (iii) Amended Administrative Order Establishing the Ninth Judicial
Circuit Court County Civil Court Guidelines, Orange County (AO2017-04-01) and (iv) any
division-specific quidelines that may be applicable.
3. MODIFICATION OF THIS ORDER: The parties may not, individually or by
agreement, alter or extend the deadlines in this Order, or waive any of the provisions of this
Order. The provisions of this Order may be modified only upon motion/stipulation and Court
order in accordance with applicable law.
4. SERVICE OF THIS ORDER WITH INITIAL PROCESS: Pursuant to the Case
24-01280
Management Orders, the Plaintiff shall file a copy of this Order in the case. Any party serving
an initial pleading (complaint, third-party complaint, etc.) in this case shall serve a copy of this
Order together with initial service of process.
CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN - STREAMLINED TRACK
Note: All dates are to be calculated from the date of filing of the initial complaint unless
otherwise noted.
Deadline for Service of Process: 120 days
Deadline for Service of Process extended 150 days, failing same, all unserved
if not accomplished within 120 days: defendants are dismissed without
prejudice
Deadline for Leave to Add Parties and Motions must be set for hearing and
Amend Pleadings: heard within 60 days from service on the
last defendant, or deemed abandoned
and denied
Motions to Dismiss, Motions for More Must be set for hearing and heard within
Definite Statement, Motions to Strike and 45 days from filing of the
any objections to the pleadings: motion/objection, or deemed abandoned
and denied. Non-movant shall timely
submit a proposed order in the event the
motion/objection is deemed abandoned
and denied
Deadline for Completion of Fact and 275 days
Expert Discovery: (additional disclosure and discovery
deadlines will be established by the
Uniform Order Setting Pre-Trial and Trial
in the case)
Pre-trial Motions, including Dispositive Must be filed no later than 15 days after
and Daubert Motions completion of discovery and heard no
later than 7 days prior to the pre-trial
conference, or deemed abandoned and
denied
Mediation/Alternative Dispute Resolution Within 30 days after completion of the
depositions of all parties, counsel shall
meet and confer regarding whether an
early mediation would be productive to
resolution of certain issues or the entire
case. A final mediation shall occur no
later than 30 days after completion of all
discovery
Approximate Pre-Trial Conference: 11 months
Actual Date to be set by Trial Order
Approximate Trial Date: 12 months
Actual date to be set by Trial Order
NOTICES FOR TRIAL: Within ten (10) days of the case being at issue as defined by Rule
1.440, Fla. R. Civ. P., the Plaintiff shall confer with opposing counsel/party regarding the
anticipated length of trial and file a Notice for Trial. The Plaintiff shall forward a copy of the
Notice for Trial to the Judicial Assistant at the Division email address noted on the Ninth
Circuit website.
5. DISCOVERY: All counsel and unrepresented parties shall familiarize themselves with the
current edition of the Florida Handbook on Civil Discovery Practice and seek to resolve
discovery issues without court intervention whenever possible.
6. SETTLEMENT: The case will not be removed from the docket until all documents
necessary for closure of the case are filed with the Clerk and notification has been
provided to the judicial assistant. A notice ofsettlement is not sufficient to remove the
case from the trial docket.
DONE AND ORDERED in Orange/Osceola County, Florida.
Chief Judge
8237
you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in
order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you,
to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the ADA
Coordinator in your county at least 7 days before your scheduled court
appearance, or immediately upon receiving this notification if the time
before the scheduled appearance is less than 7 days. If you are hearing or
voice impaired, call 711.
ORANGE COUNTY: Human Resources, Orange County Courthouse, 425
N. Orange Avenue, Suite 510, Orlando, Florida, (407) 836-2303
OSCEOLA COUNTY: Court Administration, Osceola County Courthouse,
2 Courthouse Square, Suite 6300, Kissimmee, Florida, (407) 742-2417
REV 04/29/2021
Related Content
in Osceola County
Ruling
805 WOOSTER, LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS BRETT HYMAN, AN INDIVIDUAL
Jul 26, 2024 |
23STCV27912
Case Number:
23STCV27912
Hearing Date:
July 26, 2024
Dept:
50
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 50
805 WOOSTER, LLC
,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BRETT HYMAN
,
et al
.,
Defendants.
Case No.:
23STCV27912
Hearing Date:
July 26, 2024
Hearing Time:
10:00 a.m.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
Carlos A. LLoreda, Jr. of The Law Office of Carlos A. LLoreda, Jr.
(Counsel) moves to be relieved as counsel of record for Defendant
Brett Hyman.
While Counsel has provided sufficient reason for withdrawal, Items 5, 6, and 7 of the proposed order
(Form MC-053)
are blank.
If Counsel provides the Court with a revised order prior to the hearing, the Court will grant the motion.¿
Counsel is ordered to give notice of this order.¿
DATED:
July 26, 2024
________________________________
Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet
Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court
Ruling
SNYDER LANGSTON RESIDENTIAL, LLC VS NOHO PROPCO LLC
Jul 30, 2024 |
21BBCV00739
Case Number:
21BBCV00739
Hearing Date:
July 30, 2024
Dept:
P
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT NOHO PROPCO, LLCS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
I.
INTRODUCTION
This is an action arising from the alleged breach of a contract concerning construction of two apartment buildings, retail space, and subterranean parking. On August 19, 2021, Plaintiff Snyder Langston Residential, LLC (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendants Noho Propco LLC (NPL) and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Labor and Materials Furnished; (3) Foreclose Mechanics Lien; and (4) Statutory Violation of Civil Code sections 8810
et seq
.
On September 30, 2021, NPL filed an Answer to the Complaint. Also, on such date, NPL filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff for, among other causes of action, breach of contract, misrepresentation, and negligence.
On October 26, 2021, this action was deemed related to
One Silver Serve, Inc. v. Synder Langston Residential, LLC
, LASC Case No. 20BBCV00846, which was filed on November 19, 2020. (10/26/21 Minute Order.) Case No. 20BBCV00846 was deemed the lead case. (10/26/21 Minute Order.)
On January 18, 2022, NPL filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint (FAXC) against Plaintiff alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and (3) Negligence.
On March 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) against NPL alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Labor and Materials Furnished; (3) Foreclose Mechanics Lien; and (4) Statutory Violation of Civil Code sections 8810
et seq
.
On May 26, 2022, NPL filed the operative Second Amended Cross Complaint (SAXC) against Plaintiff; J.S. Egan Design, Inc.; Don E. Empakeris Architects; Jayco-Cal Engineering, Inc.; Kaplan Gehring McCarroll Architectural Lighting, Inc.; PE&C Civil Engineering, LLC; SQLA, Inc.; Sacharias Vorgias Consulting Electrical Engineering, Inc.; Burnett & Young Shoring Engineers, Inc.; John Labib & Associates, Structural Engineers; Vivian C. Tanamachi; Salamoff Design Studio, LLC; 6th Generation, Inc.; and Roes 1 through 100, inclusive (collectively, Cross-Defendants) alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Negligence; (4) Breach of Contract; (5) Negligence/Professional Negligence; (6) Express Indemnity; and (7) Equitable Indemnity/Apportionment.
On November 9, 2022, Cross-Defendant Don E. Empakeris Architects filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff and Moes 1 through 50 alleging causes of action for: (1) Equitable/Implied Indemnity; (2) Contribution; (3) Apportionment of Fault; and (4) Declaratory Relief.
On December 28, 2023, pursuant to requests for dismissal filed by NPL, the following Cross-Defendants were dismissed from the SAXC: John Labib & Associates, Structural Engineers; Salamoff Design Studio, LLC; Kaplan Gehring McCarroll Architectural Lighting, Inc.; Burnett & Young Shoring Engineers, Inc.;
6th Generation, Inc.; SQLA, Inc.; PE&C Civil Engineering, LLC; and J.S. Egan Design, Inc.
On March 27, 2024, this action was reassigned to the Honorable Jared D. Moses sitting in Department P at Pasadena Courthouse effective April 2, 2024.
On June 3, 2024, NPL filed and served the instant Motion to File a Third Amended Cross-Complaint. The motion is made on the grounds that NPL has claims for damages against the remaining Cross-Defendants that said Cross-Defendants dispute remain [sic] and have sought to file this Third Amended Cross-Complaint to be clear on the remaining damages sought in this action. (Not. of Mot. at p. 2:3-6.)
As of July 25, 2024, the motion for leave to amend is unopposed. Any opposition was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Civ. Proc. Code §473, subd. (a), allows courts to permit amendment of pleadings in furtherance of justice and on any terms as may be proper.
Motions for leave to amend are directed to the sound discretion of the judge: The court may, in furtherance of justice and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.... (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) However, the courts discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. (Citations.) The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. (Citation.) Leave to amend should be denied only where the facts are not in dispute, and the nature of the plaintiff's claim is clear, but under substantive law, no liability exists and no amendment would change the result. (Citation.) (
Howard v. County of San Diego
(2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.)
Courts will ordinarily not consider the validity of a proposed pleading; the preferred practice is to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings. (
Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court
(1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) But a court does not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend where the proposed pleading fails to state a cause of action and further amendment would be futile. (
Foxborough v. Van Atta
(1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 217, 230-231.)
Courts have discretion to deny leave to amend where delay in seeking amendment has prejudiced the other party. (
Hirsa v. Superior Court
(1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.)
Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subd. (b), requires that a motion for leave to amend be accompanied by a declaration stating why the amendment is necessary and proper, the effect of the amendment, when the facts giving rise to the amended declaration were discovered, and the reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier.
III.
ANALYSIS
In support of the motion, E. Scott Holbrook, Jr. (Holbrook) declares the following: this action was resolved with most parties in December 2023. (Holbrook Decl., ¶ 2.) Subsequently mediation has been held with one of the remaining cross-defendants with further mediation scheduled. (Holbrook Decl., ¶ 2.) NPL seeks to amend the [cross-complaint] to be clear that the claims [NPL] abandoned of $21,000,000 against Plaintiff . . . were abandoned because of, arose of, resulted from, occurred in connection with, and/or were related to the services provided by the Third Party Design Cross Defendants remaining in this action. (Holbrook Decl., ¶ 2.) Counsel states that it is now necessary to file a Third Amended Cross-Complaint to assure the remaining cross-defendants do not object to the damages claims as not being plead in an effort to exclude some of NPLs claims for damages claiming they were not alleged against the remaining cross-defendants. Mr. Holbrook then generally describes the proposed modifications from the SAXC to the Third Amended Cross-Complaint. (Holbrook Decl., ¶ 3(a)-(i).)
The Court finds that the motion is procedurally improper and not compliant with California
Rules of Court
, Rule 3.1324. NPL has failed to state by page, paragraph, and line number, where the deleted or additional allegations are located. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a).) Additionally, the declaration of Mr. Holbrook in support of the motion does not state the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and why the request for amendment was not made sooner. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b).)
Nevertheless, notwithstanding these procedural infirmities, the Court will permit the filing of the third amended cross-complaint.
The motion is unopposed and there are
rare
occasions when principles of efficiency lead one to conclude that it is best not to exalt form over substance.
IV.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing,
Defendant and Cross-Complainant Noho Propco LLC
s Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.
Defendant and Cross-Complainant Noho Propco LLC to give notice of this order.
Dated:
July 30, 2024
JARED D. MOSES
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Ruling
TELO, SAJMIR vs CABRAL, LEVI
Jul 23, 2024 |
CV-23-003803
CV-23-003803 – TELO, SAJMIR vs CABRAL, LEVI – Defendants’ Motion to Compel Appearance and Testimony at Deposition and Production of Documents – DENIED, in part; HEARING REQUIRED.
Defendants have failed to establish the Court’s authority to order disclosure of the requested records and testimony pursuant to Plaintiff’s property (the Bluff Creek property), as the provisions of Rev. & Tax Code § 408(e)(3) only authorize the Court to issue such an order in the context of a proceeding by a taxpayer challenging the assessment. Therefore, the motion is DENIED as to the request concerning the Bluff Creek property.
With regard to Defendant’s property (the Gomes Road property), it appears that the County Assessor is amenable to disclosure of the requested information, but it is unclear whether all responsive materials have been produced or whether the Assessor’s office has any remaining objections to be resolved in that regard. In addition, it is unclear whether the Assessor opposes the request for testimony relative to the Gomes Road property. Therefore, counsel shall appear at the hearing to discuss these issues.
THE COURT’S PHONE SYSTEM IS DOWN. If you desire a hearing, you must email your request to the court before 4:00 p.m. today. In addition, your email must list the email addresses of all counsel who will appear at the hearing. Upon receipt, the court will schedule a Zoom hearing.
Ruling
JO ELLEN GREEN KAISER VS. THELMA PINTOR ET AL
Jul 24, 2024 |
CGC24613077
Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 24, 2024 line 5. DEFENDANT PAUL FRENKIEL, TIFFANY PINTOR DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT is SUSTAINED with leave to amend as Plaintiff's complaint is uncertain. Plaintiff shall allege the scope of encroachment and the starting date of the encroachment (specifically before or after Plaintiff's house was torn down). Demurrer is otherwise overruled. =(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 22, 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
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
Arturo Rodriguez vs. Ravdeep Singh
Jul 25, 2024 |
23CECG04769
Re: Arturo Rodriguez v. Ravdeep Singh
Superior Court Case No. 23CECG04769
Hearing Date: July 25, 2024 (Dept. 502)
Motion: Defendants’ Demurrer to the Complaint and Motion to Strike
Tentative Ruling:
To order the hearing off calendar, as no motion was filed for this hearing date, and
it does not appear any notice was given to plaintiff of this hearing.
Explanation:
Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings against defendants’ answer,
which was originally scheduled for March 28, 2024, but was continued to May 14, 2024,
to allow plaintiff to correct defects in his proof of service of the motion. His motion was
granted on May 14, 2024.
On May 10, 2024, defendants filed a memorandum of points and authorities and
four declarations in support of a demurrer, and these papers reflected a hearing date of
May 14, 2024. However, defendants had not calendared a hearing for a demurrer, and
instead were apparently attempting to use the date for plaintiff’s motion as a hearing
date for their own motion. When defendants appeared for oral argument at this hearing,
the court informed them that they did not have a motion on calendar, and they needed
to obtain a hearing date from the court’s Law and Motion desk before filing moving
papers.
After this, defendants obtained a hearing date, but they did not file any moving
papers for this hearing date. Perhaps defendants believed that the papers they filed on
May 10, 2024, served as the moving papers for the July 25th hearing. This is incorrect.
Those papers did not give plaintiff any notice of a hearing on July 25, 2024. Furthermore,
there is no Notice of Motion included with the papers filed on May 10, 2024. Nor is there
a proof of service of any moving papers on plaintiff for a hearing on July 25, 2024. The
statement in the Declaration of June Waara that she verbally informed plaintiff of the
hearing on July 25, 2024, does not make for service of the motion on plaintiff.
If defendants desire a hearing on a demurrer to the complaint, they must obtain
a hearing date from the Law and Motion clerk, and thereafter file moving papers
properly indicating the date they obtained, which show timely and proper service of the
motion on plaintiff. Even though defendants are self-represented, they are held to the
same standards as attorneys and they must follow the rules of civil procedure.
(Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.)
Also, the declaration of non-party June Waara filed on defendants’ behalf on July
12, 2024 indicates that she met and conferred with plaintiff regarding the demurrer, which
defendants are supposed to do. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41.) Ms. Waara’s status as a
licensed and bonded Unlawful Detainer Assistant and Process Server does not give her
any authority to meet and confer with plaintiff on defendants’ behalf. Ms. Waara should
take care not to practice law without a license.
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: KCK on 07/23/24 .
(Judge’s initials) (Date)
Ruling
ATLANTIC MANAGEMENT, LLC VS LOS ANGELES CLINICA MEDICA GENERAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC.
Jul 26, 2024 |
23STCV28108
Case Number:
23STCV28108
Hearing Date:
July 26, 2024
Dept:
47
Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE:
July 26, 2024
TRIAL DATE:
NOT SET
CASE:
Atlantic Management LLC v. Los Angeles Clinica Medica General Medical Center, Inc.
CASE NO.:
23STCV28108
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
MOVING PARTY
: Defendant Los Angeles Clinica Medica General Medical Center, Inc.
RESPONDING PARTY(S)
: Plaintiff Atlantic Management, LLC
CASE HISTORY
:
·
11/15/23: Complaint filed.
·
05/21/24: Dismissal entered without prejudice as to all parties and all causes of action.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
This is an unlawful detainer action. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to timely vacate the premises after failing to exercise an option to renew or extend the commercial lease agreement between the parties.
Defendant moves to consolidate this action with three other actions.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendants Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.
DISCUSSION:
Defendant to consolidate this action,
Atlantic Management LLC v. Los Angeles Clinica Medica General Medical Center, Inc
., Case No. 23STCV28108, with two other unlawful detainer actions with the same title, Case Nos. 23STUD14911 and 24STCV11586, and with the civil action entitled
Los Angeles Clinica Medica General Medical Center Inc. v. Atlantic Management LLC
, Case No. 24STCV13007.
Legal Standard for Consolidation
When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a
joint hearing or trial
of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order
all the actions consolidated
and it may make
such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay
.
(Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a), bold emphasis added.)
Requests for Judicial Notice
Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of (1) the Request for Dismissal in this action and (2) the Request for Dismissal in the identically titled action with Case No. 23STUD14911. Plaintiffs request is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d) (court records).
Procedural Requirements
A motion to consolidate must satisfy the requirements of California Rules of Court Rule 3.350, which provides, in relevant part:
(a) Requirements of motion
(1) A notice of motion to consolidate must:
(A) List all named parties in each case, the names of those who have appeared, and the names of their respective attorneys of
record;
(B) Contain the captions of all the cases sought to be consolidated, with the lowest numbered case shown first; and
(C) Be filed in each case sought to be consolidated.
(2) The motion to consolidate:
(A) Is deemed a single motion for the purpose of determining the appropriate filing fee, but memorandums, declarations, and other supporting papers must be filed only in the lowest numbered
case;
(B) Must be served on all attorneys of record and all
nonrepresented
parties in all of the cases sought to be consolidated; and
(C) Must have a proof of service filed as part of the motion.
(Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.350(a).)
Under Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 3.3(g), cases must be related into the same department prior to consolidation.
Defendant seeks to consolidate this action,
Atlantic Management LLC v. Los Angeles Clinica Medica General Medical Center, Inc.
, Case No. 23STCV28108, with two other unlawful detainer actions with the same title, Case Nos. 23STUD14911 and 24STCV11586, and with the civil action entitled
Los Angeles Clinica Medica General Medical Center Inc. v. Atlantic Management LLC
, Case No. 24STCV13007.
The moving party has
not
listed the parties who have appeared in each case in the notice of motion, as required by Rule 3.350(a)(1)(A). Defendant merely recites the abbreviated case names with docket numbers for each of the cases at issue. (See Notice of Motion pp.1-2.) The moving party also has
not
listed the names of the respective attorneys of record, as required by Rule 3.350(a)(1)(A). The motion does not contain the
captions
of all the cases sought to be consolidated, as required by Rule 3.350(a)(1)(B), nor has it been filed in any of the other actions as required by Rule 3.350(a)(1)(C). Further, Defendant has neglected to include a proof of service or provide any evidence that the motion was served on
all
attorneys of record and
all
nonrepresented parties in
all
cases, as required by Rule 3.350(a)(2)(B)-(C). Moreover, the other three actions have not been related into this department, as required by Local Rule 3.3(g).
While the parties are identical across the three unlawful detainer actions and have retained the same counsel in all three cases, the civil action (Case No. 24STCV13007) names an additional party, Sergio Gutierrez, as a defendant, who is not accounted for in any of the papers. The Court therefore cannot find that Defendant has complied with the procedural requirements for a motion to consolidate.
CONCLUSION
:
Accordingly, Defendants Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.
Moving
Party
to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 26, 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.
Preview
Filing # 200337262 E-Filed 06/11/2024 05:49:05 PM f#: 24-01280 RETURN OF SERVICE IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA PLAINTIFF LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC; et seq. vs. DEFENDANT MERCEDES CARDONA ; et al. DEFENDANT UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF MERCEDES CARDONA TO BE SERVED CASE NO 2024 CA 001221 MF TYPE OF PROCESS COMPLAINT, LIS PENDENS, NOTICE TO DIVISION HOMEOWNER, STANDING CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN/ORDER, SUMMONS I received this process on the 5/13/2024 at 5:15 PM AT ADDRESS 708 PASTEUR LANE I ( ) served ( x ) not served the within named defendant. WHERE SERVED KISSIMMEE, FL 34759 ON DATE/TIME: 5/14/2024 7:19 PM (OR ATTEMPTED) ( x ) NON-SERVICE: For the reason that after diligent efforts, I could not serve the Defendant identified above at the address stated above. Military Status: ( ) Refused ( ) No ( ) Yes Branch: Marital Status: ( ) Refused ( ) Not married ( ) Married ( ) Married, but separated Mobile Home: No COMMENTS: 05/14/2024 07:19:00 PM - None per Mercedes Cardona . I hereby certify that I am over the age of 18, I am not a party to this action and have no interest in the process being served, and I am a Certified Process Server or Special Process Server in good standing in the judicial circuit/county in which the process was served, and/or am otherwise duly authorized to have served process in the jurisdiction where process was served. "Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing document and that the facts stated in it are true." F.S. 92.525 X Notary Not Required Pursuant to FS 92.525 Server Signature / ProVest Case id # 7143075 Rebeca Feliciano - Process Server ID: 448 Title (if applicable): CERTIFIED PROCESS SERVER Non-Served on 05/14/2024 7:19 PM Filing # 197588253 E-Filed 05/03/2024 02:05:19 PM LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE Plaintiff, 9TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR VS. OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA MERCEDES CARDONA, ct al, CIVIL DIVISION: Defendants. CASE NO.: 2024 CA 001221 MF SUMMONS PERSONAL SERVICE ON AN INDIVIDUAL IMPORTANT TO DEFENDANT: UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF MERCEDES CARDONA 708 PASTEUR LN, KISSIMMEE, FL 34759 A lawsuit has been filed against you. You have 20 calendar days after this summons is served on you to file a written response to the altached Complaint with the Clerk of this Court. A phone call will not protect you. Your written response, including the case number given above and the names of the parties, must be filed if you want the Court to hear your side of the case. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case, and your wages, money, and property may thereafter be taken without further warning from the Court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may call an attorney referrai service or a legal aid office (listed in the phonebook). If you choose to file a written response yourself, at the same time you file your written response to the Court you must also mail or take a copy of your written response to the "Plaintiff/Plaintiff's Attorney" named below. DE CUBAS & LEWIS, P.A. ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF PO Box 5026, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33310 Telephone: (954) 453-0365 Facsimile: (954) 771-6052 Toll Free: 1-800-441-2438 DESIGNATED PRIMARY EMAIL FOR SERVICE PURSUANT TO FLA. R. JUD. ADMIN 2.516 eservice@decubaslewis.com If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in a court proceeding or event, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact Orange County, ADA Coordinator, Human Resources, Orange County Courthouse, 425 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 510, Orlando, Florida, (407) 836-2303, fax: 407-836-2204; and in Osceola County;: ADA Coordinator, Court Administration, Osceola County Courthouse, 2 Courthouse Square, Suite 6300, Kissimmee, FL 34741, (407) 742-2417, fax 407-835-5079, at least 7 days before your scheduled court appearance, or immediately upon receiving notification if the time before the scheduled court appearance is less than 7 days. If you are hearing or voice impaired, call 711 to reach the Telecommunications Relay Service. Non-Served on 05/14/2024 7:19 PM EACH SHERIFF OF THE STATE: YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to serve the Summons and a copy of the Complaint in this lawsuit on the above-named Defendant(s). Dated this 7 day of Mey ,2024 KELVIN SOTO Clerk Of The Cipcuit Court COURT & (SEAL) (See reverse side)(Vease al reves)(Voir de l'autre cote de) OF RK A1 1 7T10SDeput Clerk COUNT IN THE COUNTY/CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE AND OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA IN RE: CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND ORDER STANDING CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN/ORDER (Streamlined Track) PURSUANT TO In re: Comprehensive COVID-19 Emergency Measures for Florida Trial Courts, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC20-23 (Amendment 12) (April 13, 2021), and Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Administrative Order No. 2021-04 (collectively the Case Management Administrative Orders'), this case is before the Court for case management. Based on the case type of the initial filing in this case, the Case Management Administrative Orders, and pursuant to Rule 2.545, Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin,, the Court hereby establishes a case management plan. It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. COMPLIANCE WITH THIS CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN/ORDER: The parties shall strictly comply with the terms of this Case Management Plan/Order, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THIS ORDER WILL RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS. If the parties believe that an alternate plan is required or more appropriate, then the parties shall meet, confer and agree on a plan that complies with the time standards set forth in Rule 2.250, Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. The parties may submit an agreed upon plan to the division judge for consideration, or set the matter for a case management conference. 2. ADDITIONAL NINTH CIRCUIT AND DIVISION SPECIFIC GUIDELINES: All counsel and unrepresented parties shall familiarize themselves and comply with the requirements of the following: (i) Amended Administrative Order Establishing the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court Circuit Civil Court Guidelines (AO 2012-03-01); (ii) Amended Administrative Order Establishing the Ninth Judicial Circuit Courtroom Decorum Policy (AO 2003-07-02); (iii) Amended Administrative Order Establishing the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court County Civil Court Guidelines, Orange County (AO2017-04-01) and (iv) any division-specific quidelines that may be applicable. 3. MODIFICATION OF THIS ORDER: The parties may not, individually or by agreement, alter or extend the deadlines in this Order, or waive any of the provisions of this Order. The provisions of this Order may be modified only upon motion/stipulation and Court order in accordance with applicable law. 4. SERVICE OF THIS ORDER WITH INITIAL PROCESS: Pursuant to the Case 24-01280 Management Orders, the Plaintiff shall file a copy of this Order in the case. Any party serving an initial pleading (complaint, third-party complaint, etc.) in this case shall serve a copy of this Order together with initial service of process. CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN - STREAMLINED TRACK Note: All dates are to be calculated from the date of filing of the initial complaint unless otherwise noted. Deadline for Service of Process: 120 days Deadline for Service of Process extended 150 days, failing same, all unserved if not accomplished within 120 days: defendants are dismissed without prejudice Deadline for Leave to Add Parties and Motions must be set for hearing and Amend Pleadings: heard within 60 days from service on the last defendant, or deemed abandoned and denied Motions to Dismiss, Motions for More Must be set for hearing and heard within Definite Statement, Motions to Strike and 45 days from filing of the any objections to the pleadings: motion/objection, or deemed abandoned and denied. Non-movant shall timely submit a proposed order in the event the motion/objection is deemed abandoned and denied Deadline for Completion of Fact and 275 days Expert Discovery: (additional disclosure and discovery deadlines will be established by the Uniform Order Setting Pre-Trial and Trial in the case) Pre-trial Motions, including Dispositive Must be filed no later than 15 days after and Daubert Motions completion of discovery and heard no later than 7 days prior to the pre-trial conference, or deemed abandoned and denied Mediation/Alternative Dispute Resolution Within 30 days after completion of the depositions of all parties, counsel shall meet and confer regarding whether an early mediation would be productive to resolution of certain issues or the entire case. A final mediation shall occur no later than 30 days after completion of all discovery Approximate Pre-Trial Conference: 11 months Actual Date to be set by Trial Order Approximate Trial Date: 12 months Actual date to be set by Trial Order NOTICES FOR TRIAL: Within ten (10) days of the case being at issue as defined by Rule 1.440, Fla. R. Civ. P., the Plaintiff shall confer with opposing counsel/party regarding the anticipated length of trial and file a Notice for Trial. The Plaintiff shall forward a copy of the Notice for Trial to the Judicial Assistant at the Division email address noted on the Ninth Circuit website. 5. DISCOVERY: All counsel and unrepresented parties shall familiarize themselves with the current edition of the Florida Handbook on Civil Discovery Practice and seek to resolve discovery issues without court intervention whenever possible. 6. SETTLEMENT: The case will not be removed from the docket until all documents necessary for closure of the case are filed with the Clerk and notification has been provided to the judicial assistant. A notice ofsettlement is not sufficient to remove the case from the trial docket. DONE AND ORDERED in Orange/Osceola County, Florida. Chief Judge 8237 you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the ADA Coordinator in your county at least 7 days before your scheduled court appearance, or immediately upon receiving this notification if the time before the scheduled appearance is less than 7 days. If you are hearing or voice impaired, call 711. ORANGE COUNTY: Human Resources, Orange County Courthouse, 425 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 510, Orlando, Florida, (407) 836-2303 OSCEOLA COUNTY: Court Administration, Osceola County Courthouse, 2 Courthouse Square, Suite 6300, Kissimmee, Florida, (407) 742-2417 REV 04/29/2021