CASE NAME: Vladimir Levin v. Glenn Todd Rosen, et al. CASE NO.: SC128271 MOTION: Defendants Glenn Todd Rosen and Rosen Law Firm, APC’s Motion to Vacate Default/Default Judgment HEARING DATE: 11/10/2020 BACKGROUND On April 24, 2018, Plaintiff Vladimir Levin (“Plaintiff”) filed a second amended complaint against Defendants Glenn Todd Rosen, Hilary Blaire Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, and Does 1 -10 for breach of contract, waste, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent inducement. On January 24, 2019, the Court corrected its order, and granted Plaintiff’s special motion to strike (“Anti-Slapp”). Attorney Rosen failed to oppose the Anti-Slapp motion or appear at the hearing for the motion. Subsequently, on October 1, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions. The Court dismissed the Cross-Complaint filed by Defendants with prejudice. The Court also struck the answers of all three Defendants. (See 10/01/2019 Minute Order.) The Court noted in its terminating sanct
Hearing Date
November 10, 2020
Type
Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
CASE NAME: Vladimir Levin v. Glenn Todd Rosen, et al. CASE NO.: SC128271 MOTION: Defendants Glenn Todd Rosen and Rosen Law Firm, APC’s Motion to Vacate Default/Default Judgment HEARING DATE: 11/10/2020 BACKGROUND On April 24, 2018, Plaintiff Vladimir Levin (“Plaintiff”) filed a second amended complaint against Defendants Glenn Todd Rosen, Hilary Blaire Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, and Does 1 -10 for breach of contract, waste, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent inducement. On January 24, 2019, the Court corrected its order, and granted Plaintiff’s special motion to strike (“Anti-Slapp”). Attorney Rosen failed to oppose the Anti-Slapp motion or appear at the hearing for the motion. Subsequently, on October 1, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions. The Court dismissed the Cross-Complaint filed by Defendants with prejudice. The Court also struck the answers of all three Defendants. (See 10/01/2019 Minute Order.) The Court noted in its terminating sanct