#2 – Johnston v. Bradford (BC 549 704); Bradford v. Johnston (BC 621 454); Johnston v. Bradford & Meneghini LLC, et al. (VC 065 435)
In the event that the pertinent judge under CRC 3.300(h)(1) does not relate any of the cases set forth in a Notice of Related Case, Department 1 may relate the matters on noticed motion. CRC 3.300(h)(1)(D); LASC Local Rule 3.3(f)(3). On June 24, 2016 in case BC 549 704, Judge Michael P. Linfield in Department 34 considered Defendant Ronald C. Bradford’s Notice of Related Case filed June 7, 2016 (amended June 10, 2016) and declined, without additional comment, to relate later-filed cases BC 621 454 and VC 065 435 with earliest-filed case BC 549 704. Apparently in response to Defendant then filing a motion for the relief, on July 18, 2016 Judge Linfield reiterated his earlier ruling and noted that because the cases were not related he could not consider the concurrent request to consolidate the two later-filed cases.
Thereafter, Defendant Ronald C. B
Hearing Date
October 27, 2016
Type
Contractual Fraud (General Jurisdiction)
Status
Other Judgment 12/18/2015
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
#2 – Johnston v. Bradford (BC 549 704); Bradford v. Johnston (BC 621 454); Johnston v. Bradford & Meneghini LLC, et al. (VC 065 435)
In the event that the pertinent judge under CRC 3.300(h)(1) does not relate any of the cases set forth in a Notice of Related Case, Department 1 may relate the matters on noticed motion. CRC 3.300(h)(1)(D); LASC Local Rule 3.3(f)(3). On June 24, 2016 in case BC 549 704, Judge Michael P. Linfield in Department 34 considered Defendant Ronald C. Bradford’s Notice of Related Case filed June 7, 2016 (amended June 10, 2016) and declined, without additional comment, to relate later-filed cases BC 621 454 and VC 065 435 with earliest-filed case BC 549 704. Apparently in response to Defendant then filing a motion for the relief, on July 18, 2016 Judge Linfield reiterated his earlier ruling and noted that because the cases were not related he could not consider the concurrent request to consolidate the two later-filed cases.
Thereafter, Defendant Ronald C. B