Preview
@SUMMONS - CIVIL KER For information on STATE OF CONNECTICUTJD-CV-1_ Rev. 2-22 ADA accommodations, SUPERIOR COURTC.G.S. §§ 51-346, 51-347, 51-349, 51-350, 52-45a, 52-48, 52-259;P.B. §§ 3-1 through 3-21, 8-1, 10-13 contact a court clerk or go to: www.jud.ct.gov/ADA. www. jud.ct.gov Instructions are on page 2.(2 Select if amount, legal interest, or property in demand, not including interest and costs, is LESS than $2,500.[x] Select if amount, legal interest, or property in demand, not including interest and costs, is $2,500 or MORE. Select if claiming other relief in addition to, or in place of, money or damages.TO: Any proper officerBy authority of the State of Connecticut, you are hereby commanded to make due and legal service of this summons and attached complaint.‘Address of court clerk (Number, street, town and zip code) Telephone number of clerk Return Date (Must be @ Tuesday) 1061 Main Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 (203 )579 -6527 9/3/24[x] Judicial District GA. ‘At (Ciy/Towny Case type code (See list on page 2)C] Housing Session (1 Number: Bridgeport Major: P Minor: 00For the plaintiff(s) enter the appearance of:Name and address of attorney, law firm or plaintiff self-represented (Number, street, lown and zip code) Juris number (attorney or Taw firm) Law Office of Juda J. Epstein, 3543 Main Street, Second Floor, Bridgeport, Connecticut 06606 430291Telephone number ‘Signature of plaintiff (i self-represented)(203 )374 - 7007The attorney or law firm appearing for the plaintiff, or the plaintiff if E-mail address for delivery of papers under Section 10-13 of theself-represented, agrees to accept papers (service) electronically Connecticut Practice Book (if agreein this case under Section 10-13 of the Connecticut Practice Book. CO Yes [x] No Parties Name (Last, First, Middle Initial) and address of each party (Number; street, P.O. Box; town; state; zip; country, if not USA) First Name: Water Pollution Control Authority for the City of Bridgeport P-01 plaintiff Address: c/o Law Office of Juda J. Epstein, 3543 Main Street, Second Floor, Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Additional Name: P-02 plaintiff Address: First Name: Luna, Howard, 8400 NW 25th St., Suite 100, Miami, FL 33198 defendant Address: serve Secretary of State, 165 Capitol Ave., Suite 1000, Hartford, CT 06115 D-01 Additional Name: PennyMac Loan Services, LLC, 3043 Townsgate Rd., Suite 200, Westlake Village, CA 91361 D-02 defendant Address: agent: C T Corporation System, 67 Burnside Ave., East Hartford, CT 06108 Additional Name: Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh St SW, Washington, DC 20410 D-03 defendant Address: serve:U.S. Attorney General, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 950 Pennylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20530 Additional Name: United States Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Service, 135 High St., Hartford, CT 06103 D-04 defendant Address: serve: U.S. Attorney General, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 950 Pennylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20530Total number of plaintiffs: 1 Total number of defendants: 6 (CJ Form JD-CV-2 attached for additional partiesNotice to each defendant1 You are being sued. This is a summons in a lawsuit. The complaint attached states the claims the plaintiff is making against you.2. To receive further notices, you or your attorney must file an Appearance (form JD-CL-12) with the clerk at the address above. Generally, it must be filed on or before the second day after the Return Date. The Return Date is not a hearing date. You do not have to come to court on the Return Date unless you receive a separate notice telling you to appear. If you or your attorney do not file an Appearance on time, a default judgment may be entered against you. You can get an Appearance form at the court address above, or on-line at https://jud.ct.gov/webforms/. If you believe that you have insurance that may cover the claim being made against you in this lawsuit, you should immediately contact your insurance representative. Other actions you may take are described in the Connecticut Practice Book, which may be found in a superior court law library or on-line at https://www.jud.ct.gov/pb.htm. If you have ques! tions abou lons and complaint, you should talk to an attorney. The court staff is n jive advice on legal matters.Date [Signed, eee ‘proper box) De] Commissioner of Superior Court | Name of person signing8/1/24 oO Clerk | Juda J. EpsteinIf this summons is signed by lerk: For Court Use Onlya. The signing has been done so that the plaintiff(s) will not be denied access to the courts. File Dateb. It is the responsibility of the plaintiff(s) to ensure that service is made in the manner provided by law.c. The court staff is not permitted to give any legal advice in connection with any lawsuit.d. The Clerk signing this summons at the request of the plaintiff(s) is not responsible in any way for any errors or omissions in the summons, any allegations contained in the complaint, or the service of the summons or complaint.certify Ihave read and | Signed (Self-epresented plaintif) Date Docket Numberunderstand the above: =Print Form] Page 1 of 2 Reset Form JInstructions Type or print legibly. If you are a self-represented party, this summons must be signed by a clerk of the court. If there is more than one defendant, make a copy of the summons for each additional defendant. Each defendant must receive a copy of this summons. Each copy of the summons must show who signed the summons and when it was signed. If there are more than two plaintiffs or more than four defendants, complete the Civil Summons Continuation of Parties (form JD-CV-2) and attach it to the original and all copies of the summons. Attach the summons to the complaint, and attach a copy of the summons to each copy of the complaint. Include a copy of the Civil Summons Continuation of Parties form, if applicable. After service has been made by a proper officer, file the original papers and the officer's return of service with the clerk of the court. Use this summons for the case type codes shown below. Do not use this summons for the following actions: (a) Family matters (for example divorce, child support, (2) Administrative appeals custody, parentage, and visitation matters) () Proceedings pertaining to arbitration (b) Any actions or proceedings in which an attachment, (g) Summary Process (Eviction) actions garnishment or replevy is sought (h) Entry and Detainer proceedings (c) Applications for change of name (i) Housing Code Enforcement actions (d) Probate appealsCase Type Codes MAJOR CODE MAJOR CODE DESCRIPTION Major! MINOR DESCRIPTION Major! MINOR DESCRIPTION Minor DESCRIPTION Minor Contracts coo Construction - All other Property POO Foreclosure c10 Construction - State and Local P10 Partition c20 Insurance Policy P20 Quiet Title/Discharge of Mortgage or Lien c30 Specific Performance P30 Asset Forfeiture c40 Collections P90 All other C50 UninsuredAJnderinsured Motorist Coverage c60 Uniform Limited Liability Company Act -C.G.S. 34-243 C30 All other Torts (Other T02 Defective Premises - Private - Snow or ice than Vehicular) T03 Defective Premises - Private - Other Eminent E00 State Highway Condemnation Ti Defective Premises - Public - Snow or Ice Domain E40 Redevelopment Condemnation Ti2 Defective Premises - Public - Other E20 Other State or Municipal Agencies T20 Products Liability - Other than Vehicular E30 Public Utilities & Gas Transmission Companies 728 Malpractice - Medical E90 All other T29 Malpractice - Legal T30 Malpractice - All other Housing H10 Housing - Retum of Security Deposit T40 Assault and Battery H12 Housing - Rent and/or Damages T50 Defamation H40 Housing - Housing - Audita Querela/Injunction Tét Animals - Dog H50 Housing - Administrative Appeal Té6o Animals - Other H6O Housing - Municipal Enforcement T70 False Arrest H90 Housing - All Other 71 Fire Damage T90 All other Miscellaneous M00 Injunction M10 Receivership Vehicular Torts vot Motor Vehicles* - Driver and/or Passenger(s) vs. Driver(s) M15 Receivership for Abandoned/Blighted Property V04 Motor Vehicles* - Pedestrian vs. Driver M20 Mandamus: V05 Motor Vehicles’ - Property Damage only M30 Habeas Corpus (extradition, release from Penal institution) vos Motor Vehicle’ - Products Liability including Warranty M40 Asbitration vog Motor Vehicle* - All other M50 Declaratory Judgment vi0 Boats M63 Bar Discipline v20 Airplanes M66 Department of Labor Unemployment Compensation v30 Railroads Enforcement v40 Snowmobiles M68 Bar Discipline - Inactive Status v0 All other M70 Municipal Ordinance and Regulation Enforcement "Motor Vehicles include cars, trucks, motorcycles, and motor scooters, M80 Foreign Civil Judgments - C.G.S. 52-604 & C.G.S. 50a-30 M83 ‘Smail Claims Transfer to Regular Docket Wills, Estates wo Construction of Wills and Trusts M84 Foreign Protective Order and Trusts ws0 All other Meo CHRO Action in the Public Interest - P.A. 19-93 M90 All other Page 2 of 2JD-CV-103 Rev. 7-09 eats a YOU ARE BEING SUED: AND YOU ARE IN DANGER OF J y sy) LOSING YOUR PROPERTY SY The Connecticut Superior Court requ ires that this notice be sent to This is not legal advice. Please you about the res’ idential foreclosure process. read it careful ly. It is important that you learn about your o] ptions in foreclos ure, There are government agen Programs and other non-profit orga cies, legal aid nizati ions that you may call for info rmation about foreclosure. To protect your tights, you shou ld speak to an attor, ni ey or go coordinator or Court Service Cent to the foreclosure clerk, foreclosure caseflow er in t he Court where your case was If you do not take action, you filed for information on what to do next, could [. ose your property. : If you do not file an Appearanc e form wit! h the Court, you will not get important notices about your he Court may make a decisio: n (enter a default judgment) against case Court where your case is pending. you. File the Appearance format the You should also work with your lend er or other person bringing this lawsu home, to contact a HUD-c ertified hous it or, if this foreclosure involves your ing counselor during this process. If this foreclosure involves your home, you may be eligi ble for the Foreclosure Mediation program. Information abou t the program is attached to these and is also available at any Su perio papers r Court Judicial District courthouse court's website at www.jud.ct. gov. or on the To locate assistance near you, you may the Connecticut Housing Finance Autho call rity's call center toll free at 1-877-571-2432, Customer Service Representatives a re available Mond through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 ay p.m. You may also Ci all 2-1-1 for other help. PROGEED WITH CAUTIONYou may be contacted by people offer ing to hel, IP you avoid foreclosure. Please 1 follow these precautions: 1 ‘Get legal advice before entering into any deal involving your house. 2 Get legal advice before payin, ig any money to anyone offering to help you avoid Do not sign any papers you do not unde foreclosure, rstand. READ THE PAPERS UNDER THIS NOT ICEFORECLOS URE MEDIATION NOTICE TO HO} MEOWNE R OR RELIGIO US ORGANIZATION STATE OF CONNECTICUT ‘Or Cases with a Return40/1/2014 or later) Date of SUPERIOR COURTYD-CVA27 Rev. 7-15 JUDICIAL BRANCHC.GS, 55 49-341,49-34% PA 15-124 www.jud.ct.gov eg ADA NOTICE The Judiclal Branch of th Americans with Disabilitl @ Stele, of Connecticut complies with, the accommodation In accordales Act (ADA) ). If you need a reasonable ince otan ADA contact parson listed with the ADA, contact a court clerk at waww.Jurd.ct.goV/ADA,Notice to Homeowner or Religious Organization:Availability of Foreclo. su re Mediation You have been served wit h a foreclosure complaint that coul property. d cause you to lose your A Foreclosure Medi: ation Pro gram has been set up to help certain hom Teligious organization: Ss. eowners and You must fill out the attached For ecl osure Mediation Certificate Appearance form, J D-GL-1 form, JD-CV-108 and 2 and file¢ hem with the'Court no Return Date on the cimmons later than 15:days from the form that was se tved on you (or delivere: forms are not attache you may get them at an y Judicial d to you). If these Juclicial Branch web District court house or from the s ite at Www jud.ct.aovivabforms, A mediation may be schedu led if: 1. You are the owner-occupant of a 1, 2, 3 or 4 family residential property ; and e you are a borrower or a spo use or former spouse of a borr as a Permitted Successor-it -Inte ower who qualifies rest (see Foreclosure Mediation Certificat form JD-CV-108, to ‘determine e, if you qualify as a Permitted Successor-in-In and teres i); the mortgage on your owner-oc cupied residential property is being foreclosed; and 2 the property being foreclosed is your primary residence; and ° the property is located in Connecticut; or 2. the property is owned bi Yy a religious organ ization that is the borrower, and is located in Connecticut. 3. If you are eligible based on the above criteria, you wil fi i'st meet with a mediator’ will determine if mediation with your lender or mortgag je servicer will be scheduled. Mediation is where a person who does not take sides helps parties try to settle their case. Judicial Branch mediators will conduct mediation sessions at the courthouse. There is no application fee for this program.FORECLOSURE MEDIATION CERTIFICATE JD-CV-108 Rav. 7-45 STATE OF CONNECTICUT ion (ie CGS. 5§ 48-31k, 49.316 PA, 15-424 SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL BRANCH Instructions to Homeowner Applicant winwJud.cigov a 1, Use this form if the relum date in your case is on or after July 1, 2009, 2. Fill out this Certificate form an: id and file them with the court Hot moroaarance form, JD-CL-12 (available al lhe courthouse or online an App than 48 day: 6 aflor tho return dat 0 on tho Summ a I ween jd anv) 3. You must mail of deliver a co; vy of thls completed Ceri cate form ons, is not represented by an alton ney, and to all parlie to the plaintiff's ettomay, orto the plalntiff If the platnttfr s who have filed an appearance in the ca: Se, This form will be used to determ ine your eligibility for the For eclosure Media fion Program, Type or Print Legibly ‘Name of cave (Plefnuivon Summons Vs; Detancan t on Summonsy Docket numbar (Toba fizodi by coutstall m) Relurn dale (On upper night portion of Summons) | Sudichsl OSUIELST (On Upper BABOON ‘of Summone) Your nome Addioss (Number, stesol, fown, Stato, ap coda] ‘Tolophono number Busiioss phono Cell phone ( ) ¢ ) A. Ifyou are an individual, answer rthe following questions: 1. Do you own the property? 2, Do you live in the property? OYes TINo 3. Is It your primary residence? : (J Yes ENo 4. ls itat, 2, 3 or 4 famil ly residential properly CI Yes [No located in Connecticut? LJ Yes [J No . Is this a morigage fo! reclosure? 6, Are you a borrower on the note? LJ Yes EINo Yes LJ No Jf you are nol a borrower on the note, but answered yes" to questions one (1) through or former spouse of a borrower, go to five (5) and you are {he spouse Section C, on Page 2. Ifyou answered “yes" to que estions one (1) through six (6) and another defendantin this case has request request in Section C to partici ipate in the Foreclosur ed or may e Me diation Progra became.the ownerof the th pro perly as a resull of divorce, ke gal separation,m asor aa Permitt ed Successo! in- Interest, who property settlement agi reament ralaled to a divorce or legal. ‘Separatio! mn, go to Section D,1. ORB. If you are filing this on behalf ofa religi ous organization, » answer the following questlons:. 1. Does a religious organization own the property? 2. Is the property located in Conne clicul? Yes No 3. Is the religious organization the borrower on LJ Yes No the note? CD Yes (No 4. |s the ratum date in the case on or after October 1, 2041? OI Yes LJNo ADA NOTICE The Judicial Branch of the State of Connecticut complies with the Americans with Disabllitles Act. (ADA). If you need a reasonable accommodation in accordance with the ADA, contact a court clerk or an ADA contact person listed at ww.jud.cl.goWwADA. Continued on noxt page... Page 1 of 2C. Permiited Successo rs -In-In Ifyou are not a bori Te ‘ower terest on the note, b ut ans and YOu are the spo! Use or former spou: Se OF wered “yes” fo questions Med lation Prog: ram as a one (1) through five (5) In a borror wer, you may bi Permitted Suc CESsor. -in- Section A 18 able to participate in the Foreclos determine if you qua Inte rest . Answer tl ‘he follow ing ques ure lify; tions to help the Court 1. Are you a defer indant in this case? 2. Is the return date in this Do Yes cas © on or after [No es" to ont (1) and two October 1, 20157 3. If you answer rad “yes” No (check the box that applies to you, (2), how did you bec ome the owner of the property If any) ? C1 3a. { became the only owner of fthe properly when 3b. | became the only own it was trai insferred to me from er ojiF the @ proparty because my deceased spouse! ‘sestate. 3c. | bacame the owner my di leceased 5 POUsS and | held joint title tp the ploperty. of the proj perty because il separation, 1 ora pro} perty setile was trai insfarred to me as a ment agreement relate d to 8 divo res ult of a divorce, legal Fyou checked 3c., got (0 rce or legal separation. Section D.2 and Section D3. D. Consents if Permitted Successor-it in-I nterest, wi 0 became the owner separation, ora property of the property as a result of Sottlement a igreement related divorce, legal apply for the Foreclosu to a divorce or legal separati re Mediation Pi rogram, you on, has applled or my Mediation Program: (che must co mplefe this section to qual ck only the box(es} that apply) ify for the Foreclosure 1. fFyou answered ‘yes* to qui requested or may request t 0 lestions one (1) through six (6) in participate in the Foreclos: ure Section A and another defendant has Interest, who became the own Mediation Program as a Permitted Of divo re, legal separation, or a properlyssor in- er of the properly as a re: Succe seftlement agreement Tel lated to a divorce or Isg: sult (2 teonssnt to the Plait jal separation, check thls box to cor mplete your consenl: intiff mortgagee’ ’s disclosure of my non: public spouse or former spouse who. personal financial information tothe plaintiff morigag jee has that infoquali fies as a Permitied Suc: ceassor-in rm: ation. -Interest to the extent thal the If you answered “yes” t e. Tuestions ‘one (1) and two (2) In Secti complete your consent’ on C, and checked box 3c., check this box to (2 [consent to the plaintiff mort igagee's borrowers on thi is note, fo the extent disclosure of m Non-public personal financial information to. all that the plaintiff mort igages has that infor If you answered “ve: fo questions one mation. cerlify that all borrowers on the (1) and two (2) in Section C, ai ind checked note hal ve provided thelr consent: box 3c., check this box fo D) ‘certify that atl borrower s on the ote public personal financial informat n n have agreed fo allow the plaintiff morigagee to disclose theirnon- information, and that the borrower 's to me, to the extent th: t the plalntiff mortgagee has that : have shown their conse nt by (check any (1 Submitting a Foractosure Mi jedia ate box that applies): tion Certificate containing their conse Giving documentation to th e Plaintiff nt, or morigages that allows for the full discl non-public personal financial osure of the borrower's information fo me. Sioned Printnome of parson signip Oxte aipaed Certification| cantify that @ co) PY of this document was or will imi mediately be mailed or delivered(date) @ lectronically or non-electronically s of racord and thi at written consent for elactronic on fo all attorneys and sel F-rey presented perlieWas received from all attorneys and delivery sell F-represented parties of record who were or will immediately be electronically served.‘Nome and address of cach party and altemnay what copy War OFT immoslately Be malied or dejiverad te‘if necossary, atiach additional cheat or sheets wilh name and address which the copy wan or willSioned (Sipneture of filed) immadiately be malied or delivered to.> Print of type name of person aigaing: Date signedMbling adtoes (uniter, Sheol, town, State ond zp ‘coday Telephone number Page 2 of 2APPEARANCE JD-CL-12 Rev, 9-43 STATE OF CONNECTICUT P.B.§§ 3-4 lh 3-6, 3.8, 10-43, 254-2 SUPERIOR COURT Instructions — See BackPage 2 www.jud.ctgoy ADA Notice — See BackPage 2 Notice To Self-Represente d Parties A solf-ropresented pa WtyIs @ person who represented party and ro} presents hinisolf or horeelf. if: ‘You filed a in éppearence before and. you have are @ self- you must let the court and alf alt lom eys and self-s F8| presented parti since chenged your address, changad your address by che ickin es of racord know that you have Rotum dato g the box below: Oo Jam tiling this appearance to let the court and all attorn jeys and selErepresented Docket numbar Parties of record know that | have c hanged my addres. s. My new addre Name of case (Fulinemo of Plriatiff vs, ss is below. Full nsme of Defendant) dludicial Houaing SmallOO Addresc of Count (Number, sttael, fom and zip coda} Dlatict Soaston Clatma Aroa Goopraphic ‘Scheduled Gourl dato (Crimiovitotornumber Vohicls Moliars} Please Enter the Appearance of Namb of solf-represonied parly (Seo “Nolico to Soti-R attorney oprasoniod Parlios* of top), ‘SF hams of offcis, firm, profenclonol corporati on, of Indiviloal] Jus numbaol ationey win falling Addronx (Humber, street) (Woliza lo atiomn courts Iho ona regist or stiiatod oredwh yourjurds niumber,bys end few fms = The odross 0 whlch pepers KR ba mold fiom the | Post Ome box Tal addersceninok be hanged thts form.) “Telephone mbar (rex cov fa] Ciyhown ‘Slate Zip code Fox nlmbor (Aroo cova trai) | E-mex od&oss in the case named above for: (5 ‘one of the iollowi ng poriles; It this is a Family Motors caso, also Indicate the scope of your appanronce) (2 The Plaintitt {includes the person suing another person). (J All Plaintiffs. The following Plaintifi(s) only: The Defendant (includes the Person being sued or [J The Defendant for the Purpose of the bail hearing charged with a crime). only (in criminal and motor vehicle cases only). (J All Defendants. (2 The following Defe; ndant(s) only: {J Other (Specify): CO ‘this is a Family Matlers case and my appearance Is for: (X" one or both) : CD matters in the Family Division of the Superior Court (Title 1V-D Child Support niatiers Nota: if other counsel ora Self-rep: resented party has already tiled an appearance for the arly or parties "x'd" above, an "x"in box 7 or 2 below: pul 1. [7 This appearance is in place of the a ippearance of the followin fic or selF- g attorney, represented party on file (P.B. Sec. 3-8): 2. (J This appearance is in addition to an appearance Warne and Jus Oa already on file, Sagres to accept papers {service) electronically in this case under Practice Rook Section 40-13 (1 Yes OoSlaned (Individual attomoy or sol-ropresonted party} Name of porton sipnlng at lett (Pitt or pe) Dats ekgnedCertificaflon\ certify that copy of this document was malied or delve red electronically or non-electronically on (date) to all attomeysand Self-represented parties of record and that written cor nsent for electronic delivery was received from all attorneys and self-represeniedparties receiving electronic delivery.‘Namo and addrere of each parly and atiornoy that copy wae muted ordolivored (™ For Court Use Only f‘Signed (Signoture of ftary Print or type nemo'of porson slpning Dats signed “Folophons number“Inocossary, allach an addiflonal sheet or shools with tho nemo of ach party ond the address which tho copy wae malied or delivered fo.Instructions 1. Type or print, 2. For Criminal and Motor to selecting plaintiff or defendant, Vehicl your appearance. File the original indi cate the scope OF including t
Related Contentin Fairfield County
Case
TOWN OF STRATFORD v. GILL, RAYMOND
Aug 23, 2024 |P00 - Property - Foreclosure |FBT-CV24-6137535-S
Case
US BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS IND v. MECCA, OLIVIA CATHERINE Et Al
Aug 19, 2024 |P00 - Property - Foreclosure |FBT-CV24-6137294-S
Case
TOWN OF STRATFORD v. HERNANDEZ, MODESTO Et Al
Aug 23, 2024 |P00 - Property - Foreclosure |FBT-CV24-6137532-S
Case
THE BRIDGEPORT WILMOT APARTMENTS, INC. v. RESSY, FERNANDO
Aug 22, 2024 |P00 - Property - Foreclosure |FBT-CV24-6137432-S
Case
FILLOW RIDGE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. v. GUSTAFSON, CARL W Et Al
Aug 20, 2024 |P00 - Property - Foreclosure |FST-CV24-6068735-S
Case
WELLS FARGO USA HOLDINGS, LLC v. FRASIER, RASHUN Et Al
Aug 23, 2024 |P00 - Property - Foreclosure |FBT-CV24-6137456-S
Case
FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION v. LOPEZ, PABLO Et Al
Aug 21, 2024 |P00 - Property - Foreclosure |FBT-CV24-6137391-S
Case
U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS I v. MATHIAS, PETER
Aug 23, 2024 |P00 - Property - Foreclosure |FBT-CV24-6137457-S
Case
BIRCHWOOD CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. v. WHITE, STEVEN Et Al
Aug 21, 2024 |P00 - Property - Foreclosure |DBD-CV24-6051387-S
Ruling
LLOYD VS. LLOYD, ET AL
Aug 22, 2024 |CVCV20-0195922
LLOYD VS. LLOYD, ET ALCase Number: CVCV20-0195922This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of case and Plaintiff’s counsel. As discussed at multipleprevious hearings, Plaintiff may not proceed in pro per as she is representing the trust. An appearance isnecessary on today’s calendar.
Ruling
MICHAEL J. MOATS ET AL VS. MICHAEL TSANG ET AL
Aug 23, 2024 |CGC20582811
Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for August 23, 2024 line 1. PLAINTIFF MICHAEL MOATS AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS CO-TRUSTEE OF THE MOATS / PONS FAMILY TRUST, ARLENE PONS Notice Of Motion And Motion For Leave To File Amended Complaint is OFF CALENDAR per request of the moving party =(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
MILDRED HALL VS FRONT PORCH COMMUNITIES AND SERVICES, ET AL.
Aug 19, 2024 |20STCV29356
Case Number: 20STCV29356 Hearing Date: August 19, 2024 Dept: 31 Tentative Ruling Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31 HEARING DATE: August 19, 2024 TRIAL DATE: N/A CASE: Mildred Hall, et al. v. Front Porch Communities and Services, et al. CASE NO.: 20STCV29356 SPECIAL HEARING REGARDING COSTS MOVING PARTY: Defendants Front Porch Communities and Services, et al. RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On June 4, 2021, Plaintiffs, Patricia Hall Carlton and Richard Hall, Children and Successors in Interest of Mildred Hall, filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendants, Front Porch Communities and Services (Front Porch), Randy Herzig, Nadine Roisman, Pamela Lowe, and Lisa Stephens LVN, arising from the retaliatory eviction of Mildred Hall from Front Porchs facilities. On September 22, 2021, the court granted Front Porchs and Randy Herzigs petition to compel arbitration. On October 27, 2021, the court granted Nadine Roismans and Pamela Lowes petition to compel arbitration. The Honorable David A. Thompson (Ret.) was appointed as Arbitrator. Claimants repeatedly failed to appear at conferences or comply with their discovery obligations. On September 28, 2023, the Arbitrator issued a Final Award in favor of Defendants. The Final Award determined the following: (1) all issues submitted to Arbitration are hereby determined adversely to Claimants; (2) all such issues are thus decided in favor of Respondents; (3) Claimants shall take nothing; and (4) Claimants shall pay $1,170 in monetary sanctions to Respondents pursuant to JAMS Rule 29. The Final Award was silent on costs. On November 20, 2023, Defendants filed a motion for an order confirming the arbitration award. The court granted the motion on March 7, 2024. On March 12, 2024, Defendants filed a proposed judgment. On March 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a proposed judgment which attached the arbitration award as an exhibit and stated that an award of costs to Defendants was improper. Defendants objected to Plaintiffs proposed judgment. The court rejected Plaintiffs proposed judgment on the grounds that a judgment cannot reference exhibits. On May 15, 2024, the court conferred with the parties regarding the judgment and award of costs. After hearing from the parties, the court specially set a hearing date and ordered briefing on whether the court has authority to award costs if the arbitrator did not. On June 20, 2024, Defendants filed their brief regarding costs. On August 15, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their brief regarding costs.[1] The court now rules as follows. II. DISCUSSION & LEGAL STANDARD Defendants argue they are prevailing parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision. Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (b).) A prevailing party includes the party with a net monetary recovery, a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).) Here, Plaintiffs filed an action against Defendants and recovered nothing. As such, Defendants are the prevailing party. Defendants proposed judgment filed March 12, 2024, includes an award of costs. In Defendants opening brief regarding costs, Defendant clarifies that they are not seeking costs incurred in the arbitration proceeding. Properly so. (See Heimlich v. Shivji (2019) 7 Cal.5th 350; Maaso v. Signer (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 362.) However, a party is entitled to recover the attorney fees and costs [ ] incurred in the judicial proceedings. (Corona v. Amherst Partners (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 701, 707.) IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the court denies Defendants proposed judgment as filed on March 12, 2024. Defendants are to submit a proposed judgment consistent with the Final Arbitration Award and may include costs incurred in the judicial proceedings. Defendants are to file the proposed judgment within 10 days of this order. Plaintiffs to give notice, unless waived. Dated: August 19, 2024 ¿ ¿¿¿ ¿ ¿ Kerry Bensinger¿¿ ¿ Judge of the Superior Court¿ [1] Plaintiffs filed a late brief. The court exercises its discretion to consider the merits of Plaintiffs filing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(d).)
Ruling
SECOND CHANCE ORGANIZATION, LLC VS KELLIE MADISON
Aug 23, 2024 |24SMCV02150
Case Number: 24SMCV02150 Hearing Date: August 23, 2024 Dept: 205 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles West District Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 SECOND CHANCE ORGANIZATION, LLC, Plaintiff, v. KELLIE HALIHAN, et al., Defendants. Case No.: 24SMCV02150 Hearing Date: August 23, 2024 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER BACKGROUND This is an unlawful detainer action. The real property at issue is located at 1123 N. Vista Street, West Hollywood, CA 90046 (the Premises). Non-party Leonila Lizarzabura leased the Premises to Defendant Kellie Halihan pursuant to a written lease agreement (Lease). Plaintiff Second Chance Organization, LLC bought the Premises through a nonjudicial foreclosure sale, which title was perfected by recordation of a Corrective Trustees Deed Upon Sale on April 23, 2024, and it is the successor lessor on the Lease. Defendant failed to pay rent. Plaintiff served a 3 day notice to pay rent or quit. Defendant failed to comply with the notice. This hearing is on Defendants demurrer to the Complaint. Defendant demurs on the grounds that (1) the three-day notice alleged in the Complaint fails to include the payment information required by Code Civ. Proc. §1161(2); (2) the three-day notice fails to include the proper notice requirements; (3) the Complaint fails to state Plaintiffs capacity and standing to sue; (4) the three-day notice overstates the amount of rent due as it requests money that was already paid to the previous landlord; (5) the Complaint was not properly served pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §418.10; (7) the three-day notice did not list Defendants proper name; the three-day notice had the name Kellie Madison that is not Defendants legal name. MEET AND CONFER In¿unlawful detainer proceedings, there is¿no requirement that a demurring defendant¿meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading being demurred to. (Code Civ. Proc., §430.41 (d),¿(d)(2)). Accordingly, there is no consequence to Defendant not having sought to meet and confer with Plaintiff. LEGAL STANDARD [A] demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint. (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.) A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (See Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 (in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents).) For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true, but the reviewing court does not assume the truth of conclusions of law. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.) Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 (court shall not sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is any reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment); Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1037 (A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment.).) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) DISCUSSION Defendant raises various grounds for the demurrer, for which she fails to provide any explanation. For example, Defendant argues the three day notice fails to include the payment information required by Code Civ. Proc. 1161(2), but she fails to identify what payment information is missing. She argues that the three day notice fails to include the proper notice requirements, but she does not specify what those notice requirements are or why they were not satisfied. She argues that the claim for unlawful detainer fails to state facts to constitute a cause of action or is vague and uncertain, but she offers no reasoning as to why that is. She argues that the complaint must state the plaintiffs capacity and standing to sue, yet she does not elaborate on why the Complaint fails to allege standing. The only ground that is stated with any specificity is that the three-day notice had the name Kellie Madison which is not Defendants legal name. But as Plaintiff points out, that fact is of no moment because the notice was also served on All Other Occupants in Possession of the Premises Described, which includes Defendant. In any event, the Court concludes that Plaintiff properly pled its Complaint for unlawful detainer. To establish a cause of action for unlawful detainer after foreclosure, a plaintiff must only allege that: (1) it purchased the Subject Property at a trustees sale and duly perfected its title; (2) it served a three-day written notice to vacate the Subject Property to the occupants; and (3) the foreclosed trustor or other occupant(s) holds over and continues in possession of the subject property after expiration of that notice. (Code Civ. Proc., §1161a(b)(3); Dr. Leevil, LLC v. Westlake Health Care Center (2018) 6 Cal.5th 474, 479.) In the case of a purchaser at foreclosure, title is duly perfected by recording a Trustees Deed Upon Sale. (Dr. Leevil, LLC, 6 Cal.5th at 479.) Here, the Complaint sufficiently alleges each of the three required elements as follows: First, Plaintiff obtained title to the subject property and duly perfected its title by recording a Corrective Trustees Deed Upon Sale on April 23, 2024. (Compl. ¶16). Second, Plaintiff served a notice to vacate to the occupants (i.e., Defendant) that contained all the requisite information. (Id. ¶¶ 17-19, Exs. 3-4.) It demanded in writing that Defendant pay $8,224.56 to Plaintiff at 18301 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 330, Irvine CA 92612, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and provided its counsels telephone number. Third, Defendant has held over and wrongfully continues in possession of the Property after expiration of the notice to vacate. (Id. ¶22.) Given these allegations, the Complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for unlawful detainer. After Plaintiff filed its unlawful detainer complaint, it thereafter obtained authorization from this Court to serve Defendant by posting and mailing on grounds that despite attempts on five consecutive days at different times of day and night, Plaintiff was unable to effect personal service on Defendant at the Subject Property. (See Courts May 31, 2024 Order.) As such, Plaintiffs service of the summons and complaint was proper. Moreover, by filing her demurrer, Plaintiff has waived any right to claim that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction. Because all the necessary facts have been alleged in the Complaint and because the Court may not consider the extraneous facts outside the Complaint that are improperly raised by Defendant in her demurrer, the Court overrules the demurrer. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Defendants demurrer to the Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 23, 2024 ___________________________ Edward B. Moreton, Jr. Judge of the Superior Court
Ruling
YAEL MAGUIRE ET AL VS. EASTWOOD DEVELOPMENT INC. ET AL
Aug 23, 2024 |CGC23607922
Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for August 23, 2024 line 7. DEFENDANT EASTWOOD DEVELOPMENT INC., LUCAS EASTWOOD, 4028 25TH STREET, LLC DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT is transferred to department 302 to be heard on September 6, 2024. The previous transfer of this construction defect case to department 501 was in error. =(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
CHURCHILL FUNDING I LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS 732 INDIANA, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
Aug 21, 2024 |24SMCV03940
Case Number: 24SMCV03940 Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 Dept: P The court is inclined to GRANT the application. Plaintiff made two loans for two separate properties. The loans were guaranteed and secured by the properties. The loan agreements had a provision allowing for the appointment of a receiver should there be a default. Defendants have not made any payments on the loans, which are in significant default. Moreover, the properties remain under construction. Although largely built, significant work remains to be done before completion. Finally, plaintiff alleges that defendants have abandoned the properties, meaning that there is no one there on site and the property is open and losing value. Under those circumstances, the court believes an injunction is in order as is the appointment of a receiver. And, because plaintiffs showing is quite strong and there is little or no hardship to defendants, the court will require a bond of only $10,000 each from the receiver and plaintiff. Given that, the court will sign the order. The court notes that this is in the nature of a TRO, and therefore will be of only short duration. The court will issue an OSC with a hearing date to be discussed at the hearing. The court notes that it has drafted this order without having seen any opposition. If an opposition is filed, the court will certainly consider it before this tentative becomes the order of the court.
Ruling
RITTERSBACHER SUNSET, LLC VS OSIK MEDIA, LLC
Aug 21, 2024 |22SMCV00828
Case Number: 22SMCV00828 Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 Dept: 205 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles West District Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 RITTERSBACHER SUNSET LLC, Plaintiff, v. OSIK MEDIA LLC and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: 22SMCV00828 Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFENDANT RITTERSBACHER SUNSET, LLCS DEMURRER TO THIRD AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT BACKGROUND This action stems from a dispute over a billboard lease. Plaintiff Rittersbacher Sunset LLC (RSL) was the owner of the real property located at 8300 West Sunset Boulevard, West Hollywood California (Property), which was the previous site of the Hollywood Standard Hotel. Plaintiff claims Defendants Osik Media LLC (Osik) and Nicholas Petralia (Petralia, and together with Osik, the Osik Defendants) wrongfully possessed and held over a portion of the Property to operate a billboard. Defendants New Tradition Media, LLC (New Tradition), Bret Richheimer and Evan Richheimer (collectively, the New Tradition Defendants) sell advertising space on the billboard on behalf of the Osik Defendants in exchange for a portion of the revenue generated from operation of the billboard. Plaintiff alleges Defendants engaged in a scheme or conspiracy designed to disrupt and/or cause the termination of Plaintiffs sale of the Property to 8300 Sunset Owner LLC (the New Owner). Plaintiff claims Defendants were attempting to leverage the unlawful occupation of the Property to extort either a financial windfall in exchange for vacating the Property or a lucrative lease for a billboard that Defendants hoped to convert into digital signage in the future. Plaintiff alleges it suffered damages in excess of $15 million, as a result of having to reduce the purchase price to close the sale to the New Owner, to account for the continuing unlawful possession of the Osik Defendants. The operative complaint alleges claims for (1) holdover damages, (2) trespass, (3) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (relating to the economic relationship with New Owner), (4) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (relating to the economic relationship with Osik), (5) intentional interference with contractual relations and (6) unlawful business practices. Osik Media LLC countersued, for (1) restitution/unjust enrichment arising out of RSLs alleged unjust retention of benefits Osik conferred on the Property; (2) slander/disparagement of title based on RSLs publication of allegedly false statements that Osik did not own the static billboard that was located on the Property and did not own the City-approved design for a digital billboard that potentially could be located on the Property; and (3) intentional interference with Osiks prospective business advantage arising out of RSLs preventing potential buyers of the Property from entering into arrangements with Osik that would allow the buyers to acquire the income streams that were derived from Osiks static billboard and that were anticipated from the digital billboard.. (Third Amended Cross-Complaint (TAXC) ¶1.) This hearing is on RSLs demurrer to the TAXC. RSL argues that (1) California does not recognize a cause of action for restitution or unjust enrichment; (2) the TAXC fails to state a claim for slander/disparagement of title, as the facts pleaded establish that RSL never maliciously made any untruthful, non-privileged statement that disparaged Osiks property rights in the static signage or the digital billboard, and (3) the TAXC does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for intentional interference with prospective business advantage because Osik has not alleged, and cannot allege, facts demonstrating the existence of a pre-existing business or economic relationship with any person at the time of RSLs alleged statements. REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE The Court takes judicial notice of the following: 1. The Opinion of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, 4 dated June 13, 2023, in the matter of 8300 Sunset Owner, LLC v. Osik Media, LLC, LASC Case No. 22SMUD00094 and Appellate Division Case No. 22APLC0033. (Ex. A to RSLs Request for Judicial Notice (RJN).) Judicial notice of the Opinion is proper pursuant to Evid. Code § 452(d), which authorizes the Court to take judicial notice of Records of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States. Pursuant to the holding in Garcia v. Sterling (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 17, 22, the Court may take judicial notice of the truth of the contents of the Opinion. 2. Court Order, dated October 13, 2022, in the matter of Rittersbacher Sunset, LLC v. Osik Media, LLC, LASC Case No. 22SMUD00094. (Ex. B to RSLs RJN.) Judicial notice of the Court Order is proper pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(d), which authorizes the Court to take judicial notice of court records. 3. Judgment in the matter of Rittersbacher Sunset, LLC v. Osik Media, LLC, LASC Case 19 No. 22SMUD00094. (Ex. C to RSLs RJN.) Judicial notice of the Judgment is proper pursuant to Evid. Code § 452(d), which authorizes the Court to take judicial notice of court records. 4. City of West Hollywood Sunset Boulevard Off-Site Advertising Signage Program 26 Design Excellence Screening Applications, dated November 4, 2019 and August 25, 2020, respectively. (Ex. D to RSLs RJN.) Judicial notice of the Applications is proper pursuant to Evid. Code § 452(c), which authorizes the Court to take judicial notice of Official acts of the legislative, executive, and juridical departments of the United States and any state of the United States. (See Rodas v. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 2 513, 518 (Official acts include records, reports and orders of administrative agencies.).) Judicial notice is also proper pursuant to Evid. Code § 452(h), which authorizes the Court to take judicial notice of Facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. Pursuant to the holding in Del E. Webb Corp v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 7 604-605, the Court may also take judicial notice of the truth of the contents of the Application insofar as they consist of statements made by the party whose pleading is being challenged. 5. March 26, 2021 Sunset Boulevard Off-Site Advertising Signage Program Design Excellence Screening Concept Award. (Ex. E to RSLs RJN.) Judicial notice of the Concept Award is proper pursuant to Evid. Code § 452(c), which authorizes the Court to take judicial notice of Official acts of the legislative, executive, and juridical departments of the United States and of any state of the United States. Judicial notice is also proper pursuant to Evid. Code § 452(h), which authorizes the Court to take judicial notice of Facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. 6. City of West Hollywood Sunset Specific Plan and Amendments, dated January 25, 2019. (Ex. F to RSLs RJN.) Judicial notice of the Specific Plan is proper pursuant to Evid. Code § 452(b), which authorizes the Court to take judicial notice of Regulations and legislative enactments issued by or under the authority of the United States or any public entity in the United States. Judicial notice is also proper pursuant to Evid. Code § 452(c), which authorizes the Court to take judicial notice of Official acts of the legislative, executive, and juridical departments of the United States and of any state of the United States. Still further, judicial notice is proper pursuant to Evid. Code § 452(h), which authorizes the Court to take judicial notice of Facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. 7. July 9, 1959 Ground Lease. (Ex. A to Osiks RJN.) Judicial notice is proper pursuant to Evid. Code § 452(h), which authorizes the Court to take judicial notice of Facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. 8. May 18, 2020 Design Excellence Screening Application. (Ex. B to Osiks RJN.) Judicial notice is proper pursuant to Evid. Code § 452(h), which authorizes the Court to take judicial notice of Facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. 9. July 11, 2022 Copyright, The Digital Billboard No. VA 2-326-025. (Ex. D to Osiks RJN.) Judicial notice is proper pursuant to Evid. Code § 452(h), which authorizes the Court to take judicial notice of Facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. 10. October 13, 2023 Order re Plaintiffs and Defendants cross-motions for partial summary judgment in New Tradition Media LLC v. Rittersbacher Sunset LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-08670-WLH-AS. (Ex. F to Osiks RJN.) Judicial notice of the Court Order is proper pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(d), which authorizes the Court to take judicial notice of court records. The Court declines to take judicial notice of the following: August 29, 2023 RSLs Third Amended Complaint. (Ex. E to Osiks RJN.) RSLs demurrer to Osiks Third Amended Cross-Complaint. (Ex. A to Osiks 2d RJN.) Judicial notice is unnecessary for documents previously filed in this action. [A]ll that is necessary is to call the courts attention to such papers. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2016) ¶ 9:53.1a.) LEGAL STANDARD¿ [A] demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint. (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.) A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (See Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 (in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents).) For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true, but the reviewing court does not assume the truth of conclusions of law. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.) Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 (court shall not sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is any reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment); Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1037 (A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment.).) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) MEET AND CONFER Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41 requires that before the filing of a demurrer the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a)(2).) Thereafter, the moving party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a)(3).) RSL submits the Declaration of Eric Marcus, which shows the parties had a telephonic meet and confer on June 17, 2024, which is not five days before the motion was filed on June 21, 2024. Notwithstanding, the Court cannot overrule a demurrer based on an insufficient meet and confer. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a)(3).) OVERSIZE BRIEF RSLs reply in support of its demurrer exceeds the page limits for a reply brief. The limit is 10 pages, and RSLs reply is 11 pages. The Court has discretion to¿disregard RSLs oversize brief. An¿oversize brief is treated the same as a late-filed brief. (Cal. R. Ct. 3.1113(g).) The Court has discretion to¿disregard late-filed papers and therefore also has discretion to consider or¿disregard oversize briefs. (See¿Cal. R. Ct. 3.1300(d).) The Court exercises its discretion to disregard the reply. Additionally, Osik filed objections to the reply on the ground it purportedly raises new arguments. Given the Court is not considering the reply, it will also decline to consider Osiks objections to the reply and its related Request for Judicial Notice, and RSLs response thereto. ANALYSIS Restitution/Unjust Enrichment RSL argues that Osiks claim for restitution/unjust enrichment fails because there is no such cause of action in California. In fact, this Court has ruled twice previously that unjust enrichment is not a cause of action. In response, Osik argues that California cases have recognized a cause of action for such relief in quasi-contract cases. (Opp. at 6, citing Munoz v. Macmillan (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 648, 661 and Rutherford Holdings LLC v. Plaza Del Rey (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 221, 231.) However, even accepting Osiks argument, Osik has not alleged there was a quasi- or implied contract between it and RSL. (TAXC ¶¶ 26-32.) Accordingly, the Court sustains the demurrer to Osiks unjust enrichment claim. Slander of Title RSL argues that Osiks claim for slander of title fails because the alleged statements by RSL were true and privileged and because Osik has failed to allege pecuniary harm. The Court agrees that there is no falsity and declines to consider other grounds raised for dismissing the slander of title claim. Slander or disparagement of title occurs when a person, without a privilege to do so, publishes a false statement that disparages title to property and causes the owner thereof some special pecuniary loss or damage. (Sumner Hill Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Rio Mesa Holdings, LLC (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 999, 1030.) The property may be real or personal, tangible or intangible. (Gudger v. Manton (1943) 21 Cal.2d 537, 541 disapproved in part on other grounds, Albertson v. Raboff (1956) 46 Cal.2d 375.) The elements of slander of title are (1) a publication, (2) without privilege or justification, (3) falsity, and (4) direct pecuniary loss. (Sumner Hill, 205 Cal.App.4th at 1030.) The TAXC fails to allege the falsity of any statement. The only affirmative statement on the part of RSL alleged in the TAXC is that it might be possible to generate income from the operation of a static and/or digital billboard at the Subject Property. (TAXC ¶ 18.) This statement is indisputedly true. Osiks claim is not that RSL made a false statement; rather its claim is that Osik failed to say Osik owned the static billboard structure. This is insufficient. A false or misleading statement (1) must specifically refer to the plaintiffs product or business, and (2) must clearly derogate that product or business. (Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. v. Swift Distribution Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 277, 291-292.) Because the Court concludes Osik has not alleged falsity, it declines to consider other grounds for a demurrer to Osiks claim for slander of title. Intentional Interference Claim RSL argues that Osiks interference claim fails because it has not alleged an existing economic relationship with New Buyer. The Court agrees. The elements of a claim for intentional inference with prospective economic advantage are (1) an economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third party, with the probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendants knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) economic harm to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant. (Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1153.) The tort presupposes that the economic or business relationship existed at the time of the defendants allegedly tortious acts lest liability be imposed for actually and intentionally disrupting a relationship which has yet to arise. (Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 505, 512, 518.) Here, Osik has failed to allege the existence of any economic relationship between it and any third party, nor any probability that it was engaged in any relationship likely to lead to an economic benefit as pertains to the Subject Property. (Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 212, 243 (finding no pre-existing economic relationship when possibility of stock purchase had just begun in earnest).) In fact, by the plain language of the TAXC, Osik never held an economic relationship with any potential buyer. Osik is alleging nothing more than a speculative hope that a potentially beneficial relationship would arise based on the outcome of a sale that had not been consummated at the time of the conduct alleged. (See Roy Allan, 2 Cal.5th at 517-518 (a party cannot rely on the outcome of later events to prove interference with an existing economic relationship).) Insofar as the crux of Osiks TAXC is RSLs alleged conduct that resulted in parties choosing not to enter into an economic relationship with Osik, Osiks interference claim necessarily fails. (Korea Supply Co., 29 Cal.4th at p. 1159.) Accordingly, the Court sustains the demurrer to the interference claim. Unclean Hands RSL argues that Osiks claims are barred by unclean hands. Given the Court has dismissed all the claims on other grounds, the Court declines to consider this additional basis for sustaining the demurrer. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court SUSTAINS RSLs demurrer with 20 days leave to amend. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 21, 2024 ___________________________ Edward B. Moreton, Jr. Judge of the Superior Court
Ruling
Sol Selection, LLC vs. All persons unknown
Aug 25, 2024 |23CV-0203591
SOL SELECTION, LLC VS. ALL PERSONS UNKNOWNCase Number: 23CV-0203591This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of default judgment. On June 5, 2024, thisCourt issued its Ruling after a June 3, 2024 Default Prove Up hearing. The Court denied therequest to enter default judgment without prejudice. Nothing further has been filed. Anappearance is necessary on today’s calendar to provide the Court with a status of defaultjudgment.
Document
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON AS TRUSTEE FOR CWABS, v. MECCA, JOSEPH T. Et Al
Aug 29, 2022 |Kevin M. Tierney |P00 - Property - Foreclosure |FST-CV22-6058065-S
Document
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC v. PENN, RUDOLPH WILLIAM Et Al
Aug 19, 2024 |P00 - Property - Foreclosure |FBT-CV24-6137299-S
Document
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA THE BANK OF NEW YO v. INGA, ROSA MARGARITA, AKA INGA ROSA AKA INGA ROSA Et Al
Sep 06, 2023 |Kevin M. Tierney |P00 - Property - Foreclosure |FST-CV23-6063048-S
Document
U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS I v. DEPAIVA, JOAO B, AKA JOAO DEPAIVA Et Al
Apr 25, 2023 |John F. Kavanewsky, Jr. |P00 - Property - Foreclosure |FST-CV23-6060968-S
Document
TOWD POINT MORTGAGETRUST ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES, v. GAY, TERESA Et Al
May 14, 2021 |Kevin M. Tierney |P00 - Property - Foreclosure |FST-CV21-6051746-S
Document
PEOPLE'S UNITED BANK v. 1730 STATE STREET LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Et Al
Jan 06, 2021 |Barry K. Stevens |P00 - Property - Foreclosure |FBT-CV21-6102968-S
Document
CONNECTICUT COMMUNITY BANK, N.A. v. 91 BROWNING STREET, LLC Et Al
Jun 28, 2024 |John A. Cirello |P00 - Property - Foreclosure |FBT-CV24-6135632-S
Document
LYNK INVESTMENTS, LLC v. EXECUTIVE EQUITY GROUP, INC. Et Al
Dec 12, 2023 |Kevin M. Tierney |P00 - Property - Foreclosure |FST-CV23-6064385-S
