Tentative Rulings for November 13, 2020
Flores v. Janson & Associates, Case No. 2019-13163
1:30 p.m., Dept. 72
1. Overview and Procedural Posture.
This is a quiet title/fraud action relating to residential real estate in Imperial Beach. The complaint was filed in March of 2019, and the individual defendant answered. ROA 24. The case was assigned to Judge Trapp. She held several hearings, and indeed set the case for trial. ROA 20, 32, 45-47. One of the two defaulted parties, Pacific Equity (which had filed a motion to set aside the default), challenged Judge Trapp in July 2020 and the case was reassigned to Dept. 72. ROA 51, 59, 56. Presently before the court is an unusual juxtaposition of motions: the aforementioned motion to set aside default based on "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect" (ROA 51, 80-83), plus plaintiff's counsel's renewed* motion for leave to withdraw as counsel. ROA 78. He states: "Irreconcilable differences have arisen between client and attor
Hearing Date
November 12, 2020
Category
Civil - Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Tentative Rulings for November 13, 2020
Flores v. Janson & Associates, Case No. 2019-13163
1:30 p.m., Dept. 72
1. Overview and Procedural Posture.
This is a quiet title/fraud action relating to residential real estate in Imperial Beach. The complaint was filed in March of 2019, and the individual defendant answered. ROA 24. The case was assigned to Judge Trapp. She held several hearings, and indeed set the case for trial. ROA 20, 32, 45-47. One of the two defaulted parties, Pacific Equity (which had filed a motion to set aside the default), challenged Judge Trapp in July 2020 and the case was reassigned to Dept. 72. ROA 51, 59, 56. Presently before the court is an unusual juxtaposition of motions: the aforementioned motion to set aside default based on "mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect" (ROA 51, 80-83), plus plaintiff's counsel's renewed* motion for leave to withdraw as counsel. ROA 78. He states: "Irreconcilable differences have arisen between client and attor