Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – Central District
Department 53
mitchell pletcher , Plaintiff, vs. jon pavlovsky , et al., Defendants.
Case No.: BC604669
Hearing Date: August 6, 2019
Time: 8:30 a.m.
[Tentative] Order RE:
complainant mitchell pletcher’s MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT in the amount of $50,615.00 and enter a new and different judgment in the amount of $1,000,000.00
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Mitchell Pletcher
RESPONDING PARTY: n/a
Complainant Mitchell Pletcher’s Motion to Vacate Judgment in the Amount of $50,615.00 and Enter a New and Different Judgment in the Amount of $1,000,000.00
The court considered the moving papers. No opposition to the motion was filed.
Background
On December 24, 2015, plaintiff Mitchell Pletcher (“Pletcher”) filed this action against defendants Jon Pavlovsky, Celeste Canino, Alex Herrera, and Herrera & Associates, P.C. (collectively, “Defendants”). The Complaint alleges eight causes of action for malicious prosecution.
Hearing Date
August 06, 2019
Type
Other Complaint (non-tort/non-complex) (General Jurisdiction)
Status
Default Judgment By Court - Before Trial 01/06/2017
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – Central District
Department 53
mitchell pletcher , Plaintiff, vs. jon pavlovsky , et al., Defendants.
Case No.: BC604669
Hearing Date: August 6, 2019
Time: 8:30 a.m.
[Tentative] Order RE:
complainant mitchell pletcher’s MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT in the amount of $50,615.00 and enter a new and different judgment in the amount of $1,000,000.00
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Mitchell Pletcher
RESPONDING PARTY: n/a
Complainant Mitchell Pletcher’s Motion to Vacate Judgment in the Amount of $50,615.00 and Enter a New and Different Judgment in the Amount of $1,000,000.00
The court considered the moving papers. No opposition to the motion was filed.
Background
On December 24, 2015, plaintiff Mitchell Pletcher (“Pletcher”) filed this action against defendants Jon Pavlovsky, Celeste Canino, Alex Herrera, and Herrera & Associates, P.C. (collectively, “Defendants”). The Complaint alleges eight causes of action for malicious prosecution.