Reset


Private

civil tentative rulings


The court does not issue tentative rulings on Writs of Attachment, Writs of Possession, Claims of Exemption, Claims of Right to Possession, Motions to Tax Costs After Trial, Motions for New Trial, or Motions to Continue Trial.


Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308 and Local Rule 701, any party opposed to the tentative ruling must notify the court, and other parties, by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of their intention to appear for oral argument. The court's notice must be made by facsimile to 559-733-6774.


Timestamp: 02/18/2018 at 7:57pm



Monday, February 19, 2018 is a court holiday.

Tentative Rulings for Tuesday, February 20, 2018 are:

Re:                     Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al. v. Alisher, et al.

Case No:           PCL180846

Date:                  February 20, 2018

Time:                 8:30 A.M. 

Dept.:                 23 - The Honorable Glade Roper

Motion:               (1) Motion to Quash; (2) Motion for Leave of Court; (3) Demurrer; (4) Motion to Set Aside Default; and (5) Motion to Enjoin filed by Defendant Sonia Alvarez.

Tentative Ruling:  There is no tentative ruling in this matter.  The parties are directed to appear and advise the court of the status and effect of Defendant’s January 17, 2018 bankruptcy filing and adversary complaint.

Defendant filed her first notice of motion on February 9th and filed voluminous additional documents with the court on February 13, 2018.  Defendant noticed a hearing related to these documents for February 20, 2018.  Proof of service filed with the documents indicates notice was provided to Plaintiff’s attorney by mail on February 13, 2018 – seven calendar days prior to the hearing.  Defendant also filed a proof of service on February 9, 2018 which is unclear but which may have been Defendant’s attempt to show some documents were mailed to Plaintiff on February 7th.  Neither proof of service would be sufficient for a hearing on February 20th.

For motions brought before the court, CCP 1005 requires notice a minimum of 16 court days plus 5 days for mailing prior to any hearing.  Defendant’s notices do not comply with statutory requirements.

Defendant’s documents (consisting of in excess of 700 pages) are largely incoherent and indecipherable.  Defendant attempts to assert in response to the Complaint filed on October 31, 2017 that Plaintiff is not entitled to possession of the real property located at 21400 Rd 224 Lindsay, CA 93247. 

Defendant references a 2010 bankruptcy proceeding in the Eastern District of California and related adversary proceeding (Case No. 10-64343-A-7 and Adv. No. 11-1269) where Defendant appears to argue she raised her objections to foreclosure proceedings against the property.  However, Defendant points to no order or ruling from the bankruptcy court indicating the foreclosing lender was precluded from foreclosing or violated the automatic stay or any other bankruptcy statute in its foreclosure proceedings.  Defendant also attempted to seek writ relief in the Fifth District Court of Appeal (F075796) which was denied.

In this case, documents submitted by Plaintiff are sufficient to establish non-judicial foreclosure proceedings were completed by way of trustee’s sale on June 14, 2017 and a trustee’s deed recorded on June 29, 2017.  Plaintiff is the record owner of the subject property as a result of the foreclosure sale.  Defendant has not referenced any court ruling or order which would invalidate the trustee’s sale deed.

The court previously granted Defendant’s motion to set aside her default in this action by order dated January 30, 2018.  Defendant appeared in court on January 30, 2018 when the court advised the parties of its ruling, advised that Defendant’s answer of January 12, 2018 would be deemed Defendant’s answer to the complaint and set the matter for trial on February 13, 2018.

Inexplicably, Defendant failed to appear for trial.  Nothing in any of the documents filed by Defendant (most filed on the same day as the scheduled trial) explains Defendant’s failure to appear.  As a result of Defendant’s failure to appear for trial and on proof presented by Plaintiff, the court entered judgment for possession in favor of Plaintiff.  The court signed a written judgment on February 13, 2018.

Defendant references, but does not clearly explain, a civil action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. CV-17-80149) which has apparently been pending since November of 2017.  Documents included in Defendant’s filings indicate she has attempted to notice a hearing in the District Court for March 15, 2018.  Defendant does not provide any further information about the status of this federal action.  There is no indication that any parties have been served or have appeared in the federal court.  There is nothing in any of Defendant’s documents to indicate the District Court has entered any order which would preclude Plaintiff in this court from proceeding with its unlawful detainer action.

Attached to Defendant’s documents filed February 9, 2018 without explanation is a copy of a notice from the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California indicating that Defendant has filed a new chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding (Case No. 18-30059). The document indicates the bankruptcy petition was filed on January 17, 2018.  As noted above, Defendant appeared in this court on January 30, 2018.  Defendant did not advise this court of the bankruptcy filing.  In addition, documents filed by Defendant indicate an adversary complaint has been filed as of January 31, 2018 in the bankruptcy court.  There is nothing to show whether Plaintiff received notice of the recent bankruptcy filings.

 

Re:                   Diaz v. Robles

Case No.:         VCU 270303

Date:                February 20, 2018

Time:                8:30 A.M. 

Dept.                7-The Honorable Bret Hillman

Motions:           (1) Motion for Order Compelling Defendant Paola Beatriz Robles to Provide Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions; (2) Motion for Order Compelling Defendant Rodrigo Robles to Comply with Agreement to Produce Documents Set One and for Monetary Sanctions; (3) Motion for Order Compelling Defendant Rodrigo Robles to Provide Further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions

Tentative Rulings: (1) Plaintiff Monique Diaz’s motion for order compelling defendant Paola Beatriz Robles to provide further responses to form interrogatories, set one is granted; (2) Plaintiff Monique Diaz’s motion for order compelling defendant Rodrigo Robles to comply with agreement to produce documents set one is granted; (3) Plaintiff Monique Diaz’s motion for order compelling defendant Rodrigo Robles to provide further responses to form interrogatories, set one, is granted.  Defendants shall provide full and complete verified responses without objection to the interrogatories identified in this ruling within 15 days from the service of the notice of this ruling.

Defendants shall also pay mandatory monetary sanctions to plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $1,210.00 within thirty days from the service of this rulings as required under CCP §2030.030(a), §2030.290(c) and §2031.310(h)

Plaintiff Monique Diaz’s motion for order compelling defendant Paola Beatriz Robles to provide further responses to form interrogatories, set one

Plaintiff Monique Diaz’s motion for order compelling defendant Rodrigo Robles to provide further responses to form interrogatories, set one,

Neither Mr. nor Ms. Robles answered subpart (e) of Form Interrogatory 4.1 of plaintiff Diaz’s first set of form interrogatories to each of these defendants. Form Interrogatory 4.1(e) calls for the responding party to set forth the policy limits for any insurance policy that would cover the Diaz’s liability in this case.

Accordingly, the Court compels defendants Paola Beatriz Robles and Rodrigo Robles to each provide full and complete verified responses without objection to Form Interrogatory 4.1(e) within 15 days from the service of the notice of this ruling as per CCP §2030.290(c)

Plaintiff Monique Diaz’s motion for order compelling defendant Rodrigo Robles to comply with agreement to produce documents set one

At issue in this motion is defendant Rodrigo Robles response to Item #14 of plaintiff first request for production of documents. Item #14 calls for any and all insurance policies showing any and all insurance coverage that may provide any insurance coverage for any claims arising out of the accident at issue in this action.

Mr. Robles answered Item #14 by stating that “Responding party has made a reasonable inquiry and diligent search and will produce the requested document upon request.” But to date, Mr. Robles has not provided the responsive documents to Item #14.

CCP §2031.320 (a) provides that “If a party filing a response for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210,  2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 thereafter fails to permit the inspection in accordance with that party’s statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.

Therefore, this Court compels defendant Rodrigo Robles to produce the responsive information to Item #14 of plaintiff’s first inspection as per CCP §2031.320 (a) within 15 days from the service of the notice of this ruling.

Defendants shall also pay mandatory monetary sanctions to plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $1,210.00 within thirty days from the service of this rulings as required under CCP §2030.030(a), §2030.290(c) and §2031.310(h)

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.


Re:                   Discover Bank v. Leon

Case No.:        VCL 173060

Date:                February 20, 2018

Time:                8:30 A.M. 

Dept.                7-The Honorable Bret Hillman

Motion:             Motion to Enter Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation

Tentative Ruling: To grant plaintiff Discover Bank’s motion to enter judgment pursuant to stipulation

CCP §664.6 provides that “If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.”

Plaintiff Discover Bank and defendant Efigenia L. Leon entered into a written amended stipulation for (1) settlement; (2) suspension of monitoring or dismissal of action without prejudice that Ms. Leon signed on or about November 15, 2016. This stipulation provides for enforcement under CCP §664.6

Under the terms of the stipulation, Ms. Leon was to pay to Discover Bank the total sum of $3,874.50 with the sum of $74.50 due on or before August 2, 2016, then the sum of $64.80 due on or before the second day of each month beginning October 2, 2016 through and including July 2, 2021.

This stipulation also provided that in the event of Ms. Leon’s default, judgment is to be entered for Discover Bank and against Ms. Leon for the principal amount of $3,874.50 and court costs of $290.00 with payments made under this stipulation credited against the balance due to Discover Bank.  Ms. Leon made payments in the total amount of $418.10 after entering into the stipulation.

Accordingly, under the terms of the Stipulation and the application of CCP §664.6, the Court enters judgment in favor of Discover Bank and against Efigenia L. Leon in the amount of $3,746.40 that reflects the principal balance due under the stipulation, and court costs of $290.00, with credit of $418.10 paid by Ms. Leon under this Stipulation

If no one requests oral argument, the Court is prepared to sign the Judgment that plaintiff Discover Bank lodged with the Court for this motion.  This judgment will be deemed effective upon proof of service of a conformed copy of this signed judgment on defendant Efigenia Leon.

 

 


This concludes the civil tentative rulings



Top