Preview
Filing # 86871297 E-Filed 03/25/2019 09:19:02 AM 1H:18-47286 RETURN OF SERVICE IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA PLAINTIFF THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF THE CWALT INC, ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2007-16CB MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-16CB; et seq, Ws. DEFENDANT LISA CIAMBRIELLO, ET AL., DEFENDANT TO BE SERVED: UNKNOWN TENANT(S) IN POSSESSION #1 CASE NO 08-2019-CA-000199 TYPE OF PROCESS: SUMMONS & COMPLAINT, LIS PENDENS, STANDING ORDER DIVISION OTHER 1 received this process on the 03/04/2019 at 3: PM 1 ( )served (x) non-served — the Defendant identified above as described below ON DATE/TIME: 3/5/2019 2:08:00 PM AT ADDRESS WHERE SERVED 226 LECTURN ST (OR ATTEMPTED) PORT CHARLOTTE, FL. 33954 (x) NON-SERVICE: For the reason that afier diligent efforts, | could not serve the Defendant identified above at the address stated above () Military Status: () Refused (No () Yes Branch: (.) Marital Status: () Refused () Not married () Married (.) Married, but separated (x) Mobile Home (.) Yes/VIN Not Visible (x) No () Yes Vin: COMMENTS: NON-SERVICE VACANT; NO FURNITURE, NO POWER LOCKBOX ON FRONT DOOR. Thereby certify that I am over the age of 18, I am not a party to this action and have no interest in the process being served, and I am a Certitied Process Server or Special Process Server in good standing in the judicial circuit/county in which the process was served, and/or am otherwise duly authorized to have served process in the jurisdiction where brocess was served, ” read the for document and that the facts stat rue. 92.528 - Server Signature / P 5452458 SUZETTE DRAKE Process Server ID / Title (if applicable): CERTIFIED PROCESS SERVER 137229Filing # 85170833 E-Filed 02/19/2019 04:03:15 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF THE CWALT INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2007- 16CB MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-16CB, Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 12000199CA vs. LISA CIAMBRIELLO; UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF LISA CIAMBRIELLO,; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC, (MINE 1000034200057579884); CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA; UNKNOWN TENANT(S) IN POSSESSION #1 AND #2, AND ALL OTHER UNKNOWN PARTIES, ET. AL. Defendant(s). SUMMONS: PERSONAL SERVICE ON A NATURAL PERSON TO: UNKNOWN TENANT(S) IN POSSESSION #1 226 LECTURN STREET, PORT CHARLOTTE, FL 33954 IMPORTANT A lawsuit has been filed against you. You have 20 calendar days after this summons is served on you to file a written response to the attached complaint with the clerk of this court (350 East Marion Avenue, Punta Gorda, FL 33951). A phone call will not protect you. Your written response, including the case number given above and the names of the parties, must be filed if you want the court to hear your side ofthe case. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case, and your wages, money, and property may thereafter be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may call an attorney referral service or a legal aid office (listed in the phone book). If you choose to file a written response yourself, at the same time you file your written response to the court you must also mail or take a copy of your written response to the "Plaintiff/Plaintiffs Attorney" named below. Brian L. Rosaler, Esquire Popkin & Rosaler, P.A., Attorney for Plaintiff 1701 West Hillsboro Boulevard, Suite 400 Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO EACH SHERIFF OF THE STATE: You are commanded to serve this summons and a copy of the complaint in this lawsuit on the above named defendant. DATED ON, 02/20/2019 ROGER D, EATON CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT (SEAL) BY: Boe pingyene As Deputy Clerk 18-47286IMPORTANTEUsted ha sido demandado legalmente. Tiene 20 dias, contados a partir del recibo de esta notificacion, para contestar lademanda adjunta, por escrito, y presentarla ante este tribunal. Una llamada telefonica no lo protegera. Si usted deseaque el tribunal considere su defensa, debe presentar su respuesta por escrito, incluyendo el numero del caso y losnombres de las partes interesadas. Si usted no contesta la demanda a tiempo, pudiese perder el caso y podria serdespojado de sus ingresos y propiedades, o privado de sus derechos, sin previo aviso del tribunal. Existen otrosrequisitos legales. Si lo desea, puede usted consultar a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puedellamar a una de las oficinas de asistencia legal que aparecen en la guia telefonica.Si desea responder a la demanda por su cuenta, al mismo tiempo en que presenta su respuesta ante el tribunal, deberausted enviar por correo o entregar una copia de su respuesta a la persona denominada abajo como "Plaintiff/Plaintiff'sAttorney" (Demandante 0 Abogado del Demandante).IMPORTANTDes poursuites judiciares ont ete entreprises contre vous. Vous avez 20 jours consecutifs a partir de la date del'assignation de cette citation pour deposer une reponse ecrite a la plainte ci-jointe aupres de ce tribunal. Un simplecoup de telephone est insuffisant pour vous proteger. Vous etes obliges de deposer votre reponse ecrite, avec mentiondu numero de dossier ci-dessus et du nom des parties nommees ici, si vous souhaitez que le tribunal entende votrecause. Si vous ne deposez pas votre reponse ecrite dans le relai requis, vous risquez de perdre la cause ainsi que votresalaire, votre argent, et vos biens peuvent etre saisis par la suite, sans aucun preavis ulterieur du tribunal. Il y a d'autresobligations juridiques et vous pouvez requerir les services immediats d'un avocat. Si vous ne connaissez pas d'avocat,vous pourriez telephoner a un service de reference d'avocats ou a un bureau diassistance juridique (figurant al'annuaire de telephones).Si vous choisissez de deposer vous-meme une reponse ecrite, il vous faudra egalement, en meme temps que cetteformalite, faire parvenir ou expedier une copie de votre reponse ecrite au "Plaintiff/Plaintiff's Attorney” (Plaignant oua son avocat) nomme ci-dessous.ADAIf you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participatein this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance.Please contact Jon Embury, Administrative Services Manager, whose office is located at350 E. Marion Avenue, Punta Gorda, Florida 33950, and whose telephone number is (941)637-2110, at least 7 days before your scheduled court appearance, or immediately uponreceiving this notification if the time before the scheduled appearance is less than 7 days; ifyou are hearing or voice impaired, call 711.18-47286IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA‘THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA THE BANKOF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEOF THE CWALT INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST2007-16CB MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGHCERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-16CB, Plaintiff, CASE NO.:vs.LISA CIAMBRIELLO; UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF LISACIAMBRIELLO; MORTGAGE ELECTRONICREGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC. (MIN#1000034200057579884); CHARLOTTE COUNTY,FLORIDA, et.al., Defendant(s). / STANDING ORDER IN. ENT! ORTGAGE FO. ECLOSURE CASES PURSUANT to Rules 2.250 and 2.545, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, and Rule 1.200{a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties are ordered to adhere to the following information and procedures applicable to residential mortgage foreclosure civil lawsuits: l. SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. The Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this order with each Summons issued in this case. One copy of this Order is to be filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court with proof of service. The Plaintiff shall pay the appropriate statutory clerk's fees on copies for each Standing Order issued and attached to the Summons, 2. CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN. The Supreme Court of Florida has established guidelines for the prompt processing and resolution of civil cases, and has expressly mandated that the Court “shall take charge of all cases at an carly stage in the litigation and shall control the progress of the case thereafter until the case is determined.” Fla. R. Jud. Admin, 2.545(b). The time standard deemed by the Supreme Court of Florida to be presumptively reasonable for the disposition of civil non-jury cases is 12 months from filing to final disposition Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.250(a)(1)(B). Accordingly, in Residential Mortgage Foreclosure cases filed on or subsequent to August 1, 2015, and upon the filing of a responsive pleading to the complaint, the Court will issue a Case Management Plan establishing mandatory time-frames with the goal of resolution within 12 months. The parties may request that the plan be amended by submitting a proposed agreed amended plan to the Civil Case Management Department, or if unable to agree on an amended plan, by filing a motion with the Court for a Case Management Conference. Trials will be scheduled before the assigned Circuit Judge, Senior Judge or may be referred to a General Magistrate based on the trial date set forth in the Case Management Plan, or earlier than the trial date set forth in the Case Management Plan upon the filing of a notice of readiness for trial. 3. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR). Early mediation shall be available pursuant to local Administrative Order No. 1.14, In re: Homestead Mediation Program for Residential Homestead Mortgage Foreclosure Actions, which can be viewed on the website of the Administrative Office of the Courts; htpy//yww.ca.ciis20.ore/pdf/ao/ao_1_J4.pdf. In the vent that the deadlines for seeking early mediation pursuant to Administrative Order No. 1.14 have expired, and a party subsequently requests that the Court direct mediation, or the Court on its own motion orders mediation, the general provisions of Administrative Order No, 1.14 shall18-47286apply to any such mediation ordered. 4, . A Motion to Continue any trial must be filed with the clerk and emailed to the Civil Case Management Office at civilemcharlotte@ca.cjis20.org. Motions to Continue can only be heard or granted by the assigned circuit judge or by the senior judge or upon recommendation of a magistrate presiding over the trial. 5. RULES OF PROFESSIONALISM. The Twentieth Judicial Circuit has adopted local Administrative Order 2.20, which sets forth standards of professional courtesy and conduct. for all counsel or pro-se litigants practicing within the Circuit. The Court requires that all parties or counsel for parties familiarize themselves and comply with Administrative Order 2.20. Administrative Order 2.20 may be viewed on the website of the Administrative Office of the Courts: http.//awww.ca.cjis20.orgAveb/main/ao_admin.asp DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Punta Gorda, Charlotte County, Florida, on August 1, 2015. NJ - Lisa & Porter, C ireuit Judge *****Qriginal on file in the office of the Circuit Clerk of Court, Charlotte County18-47286
Related Contentin Charlotte County
Case
MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS LP DBA LIGHTHOUSE AT FLEMING ISLAND vs. MERKAJ, GENTIANA
Jul 01, 2024 |FORBESS, RAYMOND EDWARD Jr |Eviction Residential/Non-Monetary |Eviction Residential/Non-Monetary |2024CC001595
Case
SHIV P SINGH V. VERMECKER SINGH
Jul 03, 2024 |OTHER RP & FORECL > $50K < $250K |CIRCUIT CIVIL |2024 12274 CIDL
Case
Rooks Park Fl Partners, LLC vs Lopez, Juleitzy
Jul 16, 2024 |Costello, Jessica |Civil |LT Residential Eviction- Possession Only |24-CC-039996
Case
Allister TFL LLC vs Sanchez, Veronica
Jul 17, 2024 |Giardina, James. S |Civil |LT Residential Eviction- Possession Only |24-CC-040102
Case
CAL-AM PROPERTIES, INC. vs DIAZ, VLADIMIR
Jul 17, 2024 |Black, Melissa. C |Civil |LT Residential Eviction- Possession Only |24-CC-040097
Case
VR OAKLEAF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP vs. COLEMAN, MALANDA
Jul 01, 2024 |FORBESS, RAYMOND EDWARD Jr |Eviction Residential/Non-Monetary |Eviction Residential/Non-Monetary |2024CC001559
Case
LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC vs AQUA FINANCE INC et al
Jul 17, 2024 |MANSFIELD, DECLAN P |Homestead Res Fcl More Than 50K Less Than 250K |Circuit Civil 3-C |512024CA001965CAAXWS
Case
POAH CUTLER MANOR, LLC DBA CUTLER MANOR APARTMENTS VS CRAIG WEBSTER
Jul 15, 2024 |SD 06 - South Dade 06 - Judge Green, Christopher Allan |Evictions - Residential |Evictions - Residential |2024-137004-CC-26
Case
TERAN-MARTINEZ,LLC VS JULIAN MIYARES ET AL
Jul 13, 2024 |SD 06 - South Dade 06 - Judge Green, Christopher Allan |Evictions - Residential |Evictions - Residential |2024-136988-CC-26
Ruling
Charles Cox vs Richard Mroczek, et al
Jul 20, 2024 |23CV02337
23CV02337COX v. MROCZEK, et al. CONFIRMATION OF 6/28/24 ORDER TO GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT AND OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF NONMONETARY STATUS The court has reviewed plaintiff’s Notification of Objection to and Disapproval of AnyProposed Order or Other Order: 1) Granting Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Complaint; or 2)Striking Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff’s objections merely go to the process bywhich parties engage on proposed orders; CRC 3.1312 has no impact on the power of the courtto strike plaintiff’s amended complaint and dismiss this action. The court’s previous order of 6/28/24 granting defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’samended complaint is confirmed, as is dismissal of this action. Defendants are ordered to submita formal dismissal order for the court’s signature. Page 1 of 2Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal orderincorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating thetentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, inaccordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if theprevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing (unless the tentative issimply to “grant”). Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition ofsanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed. Page 2 of 2
Ruling
ISA J. MUHAWIEH VS. YOHALMA MARTINEZ ET AL
Jul 18, 2024 |CUD24674516
Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 18, 2024 line 10. PLAINTIFF ISA MUAWIEH MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Hearing Required to address service. Proof of Service on file indicates service at a location that is not Defendant's address of record. =(501/CFH) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified, and the opposing party does not appear.
Ruling
Charles Cox vs Richard Mroczek, et al
Jul 19, 2024 |23CV02337
23CV02337COX v. MROCZEK, et al. CONFIRMATION OF 6/28/24 ORDER TO GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT AND OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF NONMONETARY STATUS The court has reviewed plaintiff’s Notification of Objection to and Disapproval of AnyProposed Order or Other Order: 1) Granting Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Complaint; or 2)Striking Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff’s objections merely go to the process bywhich parties engage on proposed orders; CRC 3.1312 has no impact on the power of the courtto strike plaintiff’s amended complaint and dismiss this action. The court’s previous order of 6/28/24 granting defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’samended complaint is confirmed, as is dismissal of this action. Defendants are ordered to submita formal dismissal order for the court’s signature. Page 1 of 2Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal orderincorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating thetentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, inaccordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if theprevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing (unless the tentative issimply to “grant”). Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition ofsanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed. Page 2 of 2
Ruling
TRAVIS BRYANT ET AL VS. NICHOLAS SPENCER FIRTH ET AL
Jul 18, 2024 |CGC22601470
Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 18, 2024 line 5. DEFENDANT ACRYLIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC. MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD is OFF CALENDAR. Re-noticed for July 30, 2024. =(501/CFH) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified, and the opposing party does not appear.
Ruling
SM 10000 PROPERTY LLC VS NICOLAI BERGMANN, ET AL.
Jul 18, 2024 |22SMCV01685
Case Number: 22SMCV01685 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: 207 TENTATIVE RULING DEPARTMENT 207 HEARING DATE July 18, 2024 CASE NUMBER 22SMCV01685 MOTION Motion for Summary Judgment MOVING PARTY Plaintiff SM 10000 Property LLC OPPOSING PARTY none MOVING PAPERS: Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment Memorandum of Points and Authorities Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts Declaration of Nicole Browne Declaration of Thomas F. Olsen BACKGROUND This breach of contract case arises from a dispute regarding the amount of back rent Defendants allegedly owe Plaintiff in connection with a residential property lease. On September 26, 2022, Plaintiff SM 10000 Property LLC (Plaintiff) brought suit against tenant Defendants Nicolai Bergman (Nicolai), Amanda McDermott-Bergmann (Amanda), and Nicolai Bergmann KK (Nicolai KK) (together, Defendants.) Amanda answered the complaint, but default was entered against Nicolai and Nicolai KK on August 10, 2023. Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment against Amanda on the single breach of contract cause of action. Plaintiffs motion is unopposed. LEGAL STANDARD MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.] There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) [T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Ibid.) On a summary judgment motion, the court must therefore consider what inferences favoring the opposing party a factfinder could reasonably draw from the evidence. While viewing the evidence in this manner, the court must bear in mind that its primary function is to identify issues rather than to determine issues. Only when the inferences are indisputable may the court decide the issues as a matter of law. If the evidence is in conflict, the factual issues must be resolved by trial. (Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 839 [cleaned up].) Further, the trial court may not weigh the evidence in the manner of a factfinder to determine whose version is more likely true. Nor may the trial court grant summary judgment based on the court's evaluation of credibility. (Id. at p. 840 [cleaned up]; see also Weiss v. People ex rel. Department of Transportation (2020) 9 Cal.5th 840, 864 [Courts deciding motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication may not weigh the evidence but must instead view it in the light most favorable to the opposing party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party].) DISCUSSION To prevail on a cause of action for breach of contract, the plaintiff must prove (1) the contract, (2) the plaintiff's performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damage to the plaintiff. (Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1186.) Plaintiff has provided evidence that on May 25, 2019, the parties entered into a 12-month lease agreement effective April 25, 2019 to April 24, 2020, and to become month-to-month thereafter. (UMF Nos. 1-3.) Pursuant to the terms of the lease, Defendants were to pay Plaintiff $11,850 in monthly rent. (UMF No. 4.) Defendants also agreed to pay a $150 monthly technology fee, a $22,400 refundable security deposit, a refundable club amenity deposit of $2,000, a $200 monthly storage fee, and a $150 annual club membership. (UMF No. 5.) Defendants were also required to pay 100% of the electricity service separately metered to the premises and billed by Plaintiff. (UMF No. 6.) After April 6, 2022, Defendants failed to make any payments for rent, utilities, or technology fees. (UMF Nos. 12-15, 18-19.) After Defendants vacated the premises, Plaintiff completed all repairs to the premises on December 6, 2023. (UMF Nos. 19-20.) The Lease further requires that if a resident fails to pay any portion of rent when due and it remains owing on the fifth following the due date, the resident owes liquidated damages of $400. (UMF No. 16.) And as of December 6, 2023, Defendants outstanding principal balance due for rent, utilities, technology fees, and late fees was $255,003.28. (UMF No. 20.) The Lease also contains an attorney fee provision, entitling the prevailing party to recover reasonable attorneys fees not to exceed $10,000. (UMF No. 24.) Plaintiff incurred $12,407.50 in reasonable attorneys fees and $2,421.97 in costs, and anticipates incurring reasonable attorneys fees in the total amount of $14,829.47. (UMF Nos. 27-30.) Plaintiff further calculated prejudgment interest owed in the amount of $31,828.76. (UMF No. 21.) Therefore, Plaintiff has met its initial burdens of establishing a prima facie case that a lease agreement exists, Plaintiff performed under the agreement by providing Defendants the premises, Defendants breached the agreement by failing to pay the rental amounts owed, and as a result, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of $255,003.28. Because Amanda has not opposed the motion, she has not met her burden of production to raise a triable issue of material fact. Consequently, Plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to damages in the amount of $255,003.28, attorneys fees in the amount of $10,000, costs in the amount of $2,421.97, and prejudgment interest in the amount of $31,828.76. CONCLUSION AND ORDER For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Plaintiffs unopposed motion for summary judgment. Further, the Court will enter the Order lodged on April 29, 2024, and orders Plaintiff to lodge a proposed Judgment in conformity with the Courts ruling on or before August 1, 2024. Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Courts ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith. DATED: July 18, 2024 ___________________________ Michael E. Whitaker Judge of the Superior Court
Ruling
WAGNER VS. LLOYD
Jul 18, 2024 |CVCV21-0198602
WAGNER VS. LLOYDCase Number: CVCV21-0198602This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of counsel. At the last hearing on May 20, 2024, bothparties represented that they were trying to obtain counsel. There was also a question of whether Plaintiff wasacting in her capacity as a Trustee. An appearance by both parties is required on today’s calendar. Plaintiffshould be prepared to address whether the property is held by a trust or as individuals.
Ruling
FRANK BASILE VS PARVIZ TAHERPOUR, ET AL.
Jul 18, 2024 |20STCV13012
Case Number: 20STCV13012 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: 39 TENTATIVE RULING DEPARTMENT 39 HEARING DATE July 17, 2024 CASE NUMBER 20STCV13012 MOTION Motion to Reopen Discovery MOVING PARTY Plaintiff Guadalupe Encisco OPPOSING PARTY Defendant Avanti Hospitals, LLC MOTION Plaintiff Guadalupe Encisco (Plaintiff) moves to reopen discovery related to Plaintiffs recent surgeries. Defendant Avanti Hospitals, LLC (Defendant) opposes the motion. The court previously considered this matter and, in its order of June 25, 2024, continued it to July 17, 2024 for the parties to submit discovery plans in compliance with this courts March 1, 2024 order. ANALYSIS In determining whether to reopen discovery, the court must consider the necessity of and reasons for the additional discovery, the diligence or lack thereof by the party seeking to reopen discovery in attempting to complete discovery prior to the discovery cutoff date, whether permitting the discovery will prevent the case from going forward on the trial date or will otherwise prejudice any party, and any past continuances of the trial date. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, subd. (b).) Plaintiff moves to reopen discovery as to surgeries Plaintiff underwent on January 8 and 11, 2024. (See March 17, 2024 Declaration of Raymond Ghermezian (in support of and attached to motion), Exhibit A.) This is a proper basis to reopen discovery. Plaintiff proposes to provide updated medical records to Defendant, to submit to a second session of deposition, and to respond to additional written discovery concerning Plaintiffs surgeries and updated medical issues. (Plaintiffs Proposed Discovery Plan.) Defendant agrees Plaintiffs proposed discovery is necessary but contends Defendant will also need to propound subpoenas for updated medical and pharmacy records, depose Plaintiffs surgeon regarding her surgical care, prognosis, and future care needs, and have Plaintiff sit for an updated orthopedic examination with Defendants expert. (Defendants Proposed Discovery Plan.) The court finds Defendants proposed discovery plan is reasonable and necessary for Defendant to fairly defend this action. However, the court notes Defendant did not include discovery in 2025 in its proposed deadlines, but rather jumped from November 30, 2024 to March 26, 2026. The court assumes this was a clerical error. The court, therefore, grants the motion, subject to Plaintiffs stipulation to submit to Defendants proposed discovery plan, with all proposed deadlines in 2026 corrected to reflect deadlines on the proposed dates in 2025. The court notes, pursuant to the courts order of December 5, 2023, the five-year date for this case is June 26, 2026. The court also conditions its grant of this motion on the parties stipulation to continue the trial date to a date prior to June 26, 2026. Plaintiff is to give notice of this order and file proof of service of same.
Ruling
City of Vallejo, a Municipal Corporation vs. Judy Gilliam
Jul 17, 2024 |CU23-05492
CU23-05492Motion to Confirm Sale of Rehabilitated PropertyTENTATIVE RULINGReceiver Gerard F. Keena II moves for confirmation of the sale of 158 Baxter Street,Vallejo, California 94590 (the “Property”) following this court’s orders for abatement ofthe nuisance conditions at the Property, appointment of Receiver, and approval ofReceiver’s rehabilitation plan. This court’s order required that any purchaser of theProperty demonstrate ability and commitment to correct the deficiencies at the Propertyand abide by all laws in owning and/or managing the Property, show a managementplan and background of successful property management if the Property is intended tobe an investment and not owner-occupied, and not own any property in California that issubject to a pending notice of violation or abatement or other notice of violation of law.(Order Approving Rehabilitation Plan and Authorizing Listing and Sale dated 4/18/24.)Receiver declares that the proposed buyer Rolando Pineda was the only one of fourofferors to meet the court’s requirements but does not provide supporting evidence. Page 1 of 2(Declaration of Gerard F. Keena II in Support of Motion at ¶ 11.) Receiver states thatother offers were for higher amounts, though the buyers were not qualified. (Ibid.)Receiver is to appear and demonstrate Mr. Pineda’s qualifications to purchase andrehabilitate the Property per the court’s order. The court is inclined to grant Receiver’smotion if satisfied that no qualified higher bidder can be found.SUSAN MAGLIANO v. JOHN CRAWFORD, et al.FCS053303MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSELTENTATIVE RULINGThe motion is granted with withdrawal effective only upon prompt service on the client’ssuccessor-in-interest or representative of the signed order. Page 2 of 2
Document
Frbh Courtney Cove, Llc vs Gerena, Nelson Sanchez
Jul 11, 2024 |Giardina, James. S |Civil |LT Residential Eviction- Possession Only |24-CC-039085
Document
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES L vs POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT PROP et al
Jul 10, 2024 |VERGARA, PAMELA STINNETTE |HOMESTEAD-RESID $50K-$249K |Circuit Civil 3-C |272024CA000664CAAXMX
Document
WHALEY CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. vs. LOPEZ-DIAZ, LUIS ALFONSO
Jul 15, 2024 |YOUNG, TOM |CIRCUIT CIVIL |OTHER REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS 0-$50,000 |2024 CA 001937 MF
Document
ELTA PROPERTIES LLC vs MONROE, CHRISHONNA
Jul 11, 2024 |Allen, Lisa. A |Civil |LT Residential Eviction/Past Due Rent $0.00-$15,000.00 |24-CC-038943
Document
JMJ Doral Oaks LLC and DJ Doral Oaks LLC vs Dubose, Kadeesha
Jul 11, 2024 |Allen, Lisa. A |Civil |LT Residential Eviction- Possession Only |24-CC-038941
Document
DHIR THE HEIGHTS LLC vs HENRY, OHANA
Jul 12, 2024 |Allen, Lisa. A |Civil |LT Residential Eviction- Possession Only |24-CC-039303
Document
BBVA USA vs. SUAREZ, PAULA M
Jul 16, 1988 |ARENDAS, CHRISTINE E |CIRCUIT CIVIL |HOMESTEAD RESIDENTIAL FORECLOSURE $250,001 AND UP |2020 CA 000618 MF
Document
FOLSOM, DAVID N vs WITHERSPOON, GEORGE
Jul 10, 2024 |DEMPSEY, ANGELA |OTHER REAL PROPERTY MORE THAN $50,000 BUT LESS THAN $250,000- |OTHER REAL PROPERTY MORE THAN $50,000 BUT LESS THAN $250,000- |37 2024 CA 001123
