SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
SOCORRO SANCHEZ, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, vs. PENMAR MANAGEMENT AND FINANCE INC, etc., et al., Defendants.
CASE NO.: BC722413
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS
Date: March 9, 2020
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept. 56
FSC: May 12, 2020
Jury Trial: Mary 18, 2020
MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Socorro Sanchez, Luis Bravo, and Erika Bravo
The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed, and no courtesy copy of any opposition papers were provided to the Court. Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served by February 25, 2020. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).)
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs’ complaint arises from their tenancy at a property located at 4619 Hooper Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90011 (the “Subject Property”) where it is alleged defects exist and the Subject Property exhibits a lack of habitability. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendan
Hearing Date
March 09, 2020
Type
Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage tort (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
SOCORRO SANCHEZ, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, vs. PENMAR MANAGEMENT AND FINANCE INC, etc., et al., Defendants.
CASE NO.: BC722413
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS
Date: March 9, 2020
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept. 56
FSC: May 12, 2020
Jury Trial: Mary 18, 2020
MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Socorro Sanchez, Luis Bravo, and Erika Bravo
The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed, and no courtesy copy of any opposition papers were provided to the Court. Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served by February 25, 2020. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).)
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs’ complaint arises from their tenancy at a property located at 4619 Hooper Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90011 (the “Subject Property”) where it is alleged defects exist and the Subject Property exhibits a lack of habitability. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendan