Preview
f/
5}
65 W .‘n
30$
WILLIAM E. GILG
i
Attorney at Law, #151991
’
305 San Bruno Avenue West ~
San Bruno, CA 94066
(650)
(650)
871—8647
873—3168
CONSUMER SERVICES
MICHAN EVONC
(fax)
Attorney for Defendants,
OF WALNUT CREEK,
M 5
_'
“ u
.
A
m0,-
newt?
SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA, UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
JUDY L. VEDROS and ROBERT A. Case No.1 N0. 661303
VEDROS, vvv
NOTICE 0F MOTION AND MOTION
Plaintiffs,
TO SET ASIDE THE DECEMBER 23,
2015 JUDGMENT AGAINST
vs. DEFENDANTS ON THE GROUNDS
SAID JUDGMENT IS VOID AS
vvvvvvvvv
CONSUMER SERVICES OF WALNUT ENTERED IN EXCESS OF THIS
COURT’S JURISDICTION, OR TO
CREEK, a California Corporation; MODIFY SAID JUDGMENT
MICHAN EVONC, CEO/President of
Consumer Services 0f Walnut Creek; [CCP { 473)(d)]
MICHAN EVONC, an 1ndmdua1; et a1
8/
Date: December 13 201
Time: 8:30 AM /
Defendants. Dept; 24
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, IF ANY:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 13, 2018 at 8:30 AM 0r as soon
'
thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department 24 0f the above-entitled Court,
located at 801 10‘“ Street, Modesto, California, Defendants Consumer Services 0f Walnut
Creek, a California Corporation, and Michan Evonc will move for an order setting
aside/vacating and /or modifying the December 23, 201 5 judgment entered against 1hem
in the above-entitled action.
Notice of Mt reMt to SetAside/Vacate 0r Modify Judg ~1-
I}
‘I
Said motion will be made 0n the grounds thatt underling f ts of and the
alleged damages resulting from Plaintiffs Robert A. Vedros and Judy L. Vedros’ loss of
‘
their home, the loss 0f income from the plaintiffs’ day care business, and their moving
expenses, alloccurred after the filing of their January 7, 2011 original complaint in this
matter. Thus, thesc subsequent facts and damages had t0 be alleged Via a supplemental
complaint to be eligible for an award 0f same in this action. This didn’t happen. The
inclusion of these damages in plaintiff’s complaint, ultimately the operative fourth-
amended complaint, in this matter was premature. Hence this Court exceeded its
10
jurisdiction in awarding same.
ll
12 This motion is also made 0n the grounds that said loss of home, loss 0f income,
13
and moving expense damages cannot be considered t0 be simple corisequential damages
I4
from the defendants’ original alleged breach 0f contract in this matter. These alleged
15
damages did not occur, if they ever did, until well over a year after the January 7, 2011
16
filing 0f the plaintiffs’ original complaint in this matter. Moreover, the fact that the
18 foreclosure proceeding against plaintiffs home had been terminated at the time of the
19
Janualy 7, 2011 filing of their original complaint, the fact that the plaintiffs had obtained
20
a loan modification dated in November of 2010 at the time of this January 7, 2011 filing
21
0f their original complaint, the fact that the plaintiffs failed t0 make the mortgage
224
23 payments pursuant t0 this November of 201 0 loan modification, the fact that a new
24 Notice of Default was recorded against the plaintiffs’ home on February 7, 2012, and the
25
fact that the plaintiffs recorded a Grant Deed on February 10, 2012 short selling their
26
home to a third party, said loss of home, etc., damages were not proximately caused by
27
any- conduct or breach of contract by the defendants. These subsequent facts constitute
28
ofMt Mt t0Set AsideNacatc or Modify Judg -2-
Notice re
fl i)
d
and intervening and superseding cause 0f said damages so that defendants cannot be
liable under any consequential damages theory.
Additionally, said motion is made on the grounds that plaintiffs’ alleged loss 0f
home, etc, damages involves a different primary right than is asserted in their original
January 7, 2011 complaint, and as it isamended in their fourth-amended complaint, and
thus involves a new cause 0f action. Thus, this new cause 0f action involving said loss of
home, etc.,damages, was filed prematurely. Even a supplemental complaint could not be
used to allege this new cause of action in this instant action. Hence this Court’s award 0f
10
same was in excess 0f its jurisdiction.
11
12 This motion is also made 0n the grounds that this procedural defect in plaintiffs’
13
pleadings constitutes a miscarriage ofjustice under California Constitution, Article VI,
14
section 13 and other applicable law. Hence said December 23, 2015 judgment is void
15
and should be set aside/vacated, and/or modified, so as t0 not reflect any 0f said loss of
16
17 home, etc., damages.
This motion is based 0n this notice, 0n the accompanying memorandum of points
19
and authorities, 0n the accompanying request for judicial notice with exhibits, 0n all
20
papers and records 0n file in this action, and on such evidence, both oral and
21
documentary, as may be presented at the hearing 0f this motion.
22
23
/’
24 November 2018
9,
25
26 WILLAM E. GILG,
Attorney for Defendants
27
28
Notice of Mt reMt toSet Aside/Vacate 0rModify Judg -3-
Preview
f/ 5} 65 W .‘n 30$ WILLIAM E. GILG i Attorney at Law, #151991 ’ 305 San Bruno Avenue West ~ San Bruno, CA 94066 (650) (650) 871—8647 873—3168 CONSUMER SERVICES MICHAN EVONC (fax) Attorney for Defendants, OF WALNUT CREEK, M 5 _' “ u . A m0,- newt? SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA, UNLIMITED JURISDICTION COUNTY OF STANISLAUS JUDY L. VEDROS and ROBERT A. Case No.1 N0. 661303 VEDROS, vvv NOTICE 0F MOTION AND MOTION Plaintiffs, TO SET ASIDE THE DECEMBER 23, 2015 JUDGMENT AGAINST vs. DEFENDANTS ON THE GROUNDS SAID JUDGMENT IS VOID AS vvvvvvvvv CONSUMER SERVICES OF WALNUT ENTERED IN EXCESS OF THIS COURT’S JURISDICTION, OR TO CREEK, a California Corporation; MODIFY SAID JUDGMENT MICHAN EVONC, CEO/President of Consumer Services 0f Walnut Creek; [CCP { 473)(d)] MICHAN EVONC, an 1ndmdua1; et a1 8/ Date: December 13 201 Time: 8:30 AM / Defendants. Dept; 24 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, IF ANY: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 13, 2018 at 8:30 AM 0r as soon ' thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department 24 0f the above-entitled Court, located at 801 10‘“ Street, Modesto, California, Defendants Consumer Services 0f Walnut Creek, a California Corporation, and Michan Evonc will move for an order setting aside/vacating and /or modifying the December 23, 201 5 judgment entered against 1hem in the above-entitled action. Notice of Mt reMt to SetAside/Vacate 0r Modify Judg ~1- I} ‘I Said motion will be made 0n the grounds thatt underling f ts of and the alleged damages resulting from Plaintiffs Robert A. Vedros and Judy L. Vedros’ loss of ‘ their home, the loss 0f income from the plaintiffs’ day care business, and their moving expenses, alloccurred after the filing of their January 7, 2011 original complaint in this matter. Thus, thesc subsequent facts and damages had t0 be alleged Via a supplemental complaint to be eligible for an award 0f same in this action. This didn’t happen. The inclusion of these damages in plaintiff’s complaint, ultimately the operative fourth- amended complaint, in this matter was premature. Hence this Court exceeded its 10 jurisdiction in awarding same. ll 12 This motion is also made 0n the grounds that said loss of home, loss 0f income, 13 and moving expense damages cannot be considered t0 be simple corisequential damages I4 from the defendants’ original alleged breach 0f contract in this matter. These alleged 15 damages did not occur, if they ever did, until well over a year after the January 7, 2011 16 filing 0f the plaintiffs’ original complaint in this matter. Moreover, the fact that the 18 foreclosure proceeding against plaintiffs home had been terminated at the time of the 19 Janualy 7, 2011 filing of their original complaint, the fact that the plaintiffs had obtained 20 a loan modification dated in November of 2010 at the time of this January 7, 2011 filing 21 0f their original complaint, the fact that the plaintiffs failed t0 make the mortgage 224 23 payments pursuant t0 this November of 201 0 loan modification, the fact that a new 24 Notice of Default was recorded against the plaintiffs’ home on February 7, 2012, and the 25 fact that the plaintiffs recorded a Grant Deed on February 10, 2012 short selling their 26 home to a third party, said loss of home, etc., damages were not proximately caused by 27 any- conduct or breach of contract by the defendants. These subsequent facts constitute 28 ofMt Mt t0Set AsideNacatc or Modify Judg -2- Notice re fl i) d and intervening and superseding cause 0f said damages so that defendants cannot be liable under any consequential damages theory. Additionally, said motion is made on the grounds that plaintiffs’ alleged loss 0f home, etc, damages involves a different primary right than is asserted in their original January 7, 2011 complaint, and as it isamended in their fourth-amended complaint, and thus involves a new cause 0f action. Thus, this new cause 0f action involving said loss of home, etc.,damages, was filed prematurely. Even a supplemental complaint could not be used to allege this new cause of action in this instant action. Hence this Court’s award 0f 10 same was in excess 0f its jurisdiction. 11 12 This motion is also made 0n the grounds that this procedural defect in plaintiffs’ 13 pleadings constitutes a miscarriage ofjustice under California Constitution, Article VI, 14 section 13 and other applicable law. Hence said December 23, 2015 judgment is void 15 and should be set aside/vacated, and/or modified, so as t0 not reflect any 0f said loss of 16 17 home, etc., damages. This motion is based 0n this notice, 0n the accompanying memorandum of points 19 and authorities, 0n the accompanying request for judicial notice with exhibits, 0n all 20 papers and records 0n file in this action, and on such evidence, both oral and 21 documentary, as may be presented at the hearing 0f this motion. 22 23 /’ 24 November 2018 9, 25 26 WILLAM E. GILG, Attorney for Defendants 27 28 Notice of Mt reMt toSet Aside/Vacate 0rModify Judg -3-