Related Contentin Middlesex County
Case
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC v. PIZARRO, TESHIA
Aug 01, 2024 |S15 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Purchase Debt |MMX-CV24-6042204-S
Case
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC v. CALDWELL, ERNESTINE
Jul 29, 2024 |S15 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Purchase Debt |MMX-CV24-6042159-S
Case
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC v. AHMAD, NASIM
Aug 01, 2024 |S15 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Purchase Debt |MMX-CV24-6042207-S
Case
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC v. BENTO, JEFFREY
Aug 01, 2024 |S15 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Purchase Debt |MMX-CV24-6042206-S
Case
MCCORMICK, STEPHANIE L. v. DENESHA, MARK
Aug 01, 2024 |S15 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Purchase Debt |MMX-CV24-5017278-S
Case
DISCOVER BANK v. WELCH, PETER
Aug 01, 2024 |S00 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Credit Card (Original Owner) |MMX-CV24-6042218-S
Case
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. v. LANDRY, MARK A
Aug 01, 2024 |C40 - Contracts - Collections |MMX-CV24-6042208-S
Case
LVNV FUNDING LLC v. BELTON, KAIJUANNA
Aug 02, 2024 |S15 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Purchase Debt |MMX-CV24-6042231-S
Case
LVNV FUNDING LLC v. GACIOCH, JOSEPH
Aug 02, 2024 |S15 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Purchase Debt |MMX-CV24-6042221-S
Ruling
Citibank, N.A. vs Albert Gedrimas
Jul 31, 2024 |22CV-01975
22CV-01975 Citibank N.A. v. Albert GedrimasTrial Setting ConferenceAppearance required. Remote appearances are permitted. Parties who wish to appearremotely must contact the clerk of the court at (209) 725-4111 to arrange for a remoteappearance. Appear to address the status of Defense Counsel.
Ruling
Captial One, N.A. vs. Ward
Jul 30, 2024 |23CVG-01215
CAPITAL ONE, N.A. VS. WARDCase Number: 23CVG-01215Tentative Ruling on Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts beAdmitted: Plaintiff Capital One, N.A. seeks an order deeming the truth of matters specified in Plaintiff’s Requestfor Admissions, Set One. Despite being timely served, Defendant Leah Ward did not file an Opposition.When a party fails to respond to a request for admission, the requesting party may move for an order deeming thegenuineness of documents and the truth of matters specified in the requests admitted. CCP § 2033.280(b). Failureto respond also waives any objections to the discovery propounded. CCP § 2033.280(a). Plaintiff’s moving paperssufficiently demonstrate that Defendant has failed to respond to the Request for Admissions within the requiredtime frame.Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses when no responses have beenprovided does not require the propounding party to demonstrate good cause or that it satisfied a meet-and-conferrequirement. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th390. Despite there being no requirement to meet and confer, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant,through her former counsel, prior to filing the motion.Monetary sanctions are mandatory per CCP 2033.280(c), however, Plaintiff did not seek monetary sanctions andprovided no evidence regarding attorney’s fees or other costs associated with bringing the motion. Sanctionsshould only be imposed for “reasonable” expenses. CCP § 2023.030. The Court does not have information uponwhich to make a finding that any amount of sanctions were for reasonable expenses and should not imposesanctions.The motion is GRANTED. Defendant is deemed to have admitted as true each of the items contained inPlaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One. Objections are waived. Plaintiff provided a proposed Order thatwill be executed by the Court. The Court confirms the trial date of January 21, 2025.
Ruling
AMCOR LIGHTING INC. DBA JIAO GUANG USA GROUP VS PARMIDA, L.L.C., ET AL.
Aug 01, 2024 |22CMCV00144
Case Number: 22CMCV00144 Hearing Date: August 1, 2024 Dept: A 23CMCV00250 Veronica Alejandra Segura v. Walmart, Inc. Thursday, August 1, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint I. BACKGROUND This is a premises liability action arising from injuries Plaintiff allegedly sustained after falling at Defendants store. Plaintiff requests an order to amend the complaint to add a prayer for punitive damages and a cause of action for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. Plaintiff asserts that the punitive damages claim is based on information recently discovered showing that Defendant ignored the fact that the area around the fountain where Plaintiff fell was an ongoing and dangerous condition that persisted for a substantial period. Defendant will not suffer any prejudice as a consequence of the amendments. In opposition, Defendant argues that the motion is vague, and Plaintiff delayed in amending the complaint as Defendant served its discovery responses on May 30, 2023. Significant discovery has already occurred, and Defendant will be required to conduct further discovery related to the newly related claims, which Walmart is attempting to investigate by targeting discovery on these new claims. Responses are due on July 30, 2024. Plaintiff did not file a reply brief by July 25, 2024 (five court days before the hearing.) (Code Civ. Proc., 1005(b). II. LEGAL STANDARDS Leave to amend is permitted at the courts discretion upon any terms that may be just. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473 subd. (a)(1).) The statute is liberally construed to permit amendment of the pleadings unless an attempt is made to present an entirely different set of facts by way of the amendment. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760.) If the motion is timely made, and the granting of the motion will not result in prejudice to the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend. (Morgan v. Superior Court of Cal. In and For Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Where denial of the motion will result in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion. (Id.) Amendments are permitted up to the date of trial or during trial where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.) III. DISCUSSION Defendant has not shown any prejudice resulting from the proposed amendments. Current counsel was not associated in this case as trial counsel until June 7, 2024, at which time Mr. Soofer examined the facts and moved to amend the pleading. (Mot., Ramin Soofer decl., ¶ 4-5.) Even if Plaintiff obtained the relevant facts supporting amendments in May of 2023, trial is not set until October 24, 2024, and Defendant is mitigating any prejudice by conducting targeted discovery on the new issues. (Opp., Lisa Mallinson decl., ¶¶ 5-7.) The claim for negligent hiring is based on the same facts and the same incident that forms the basis for the complaint. Defendant contends there is no evidence to support the claim for punitive damages. (Opp., Mallinson decl., ¶3.) However, a court may not condition leave to amend on production of admissible evidence substantiating the allegations of the amended pleading. (Sanai v. Saltz (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 746, 770 ["Although we may entertain some skepticism as to the nature of the competent and credible proof Brehm will be able to offer in support of these allegations, the issue before us is not whether his evidence will be sufficient but whether his allegations of intentional misconduct and bad faith are.]" Moreover, evidentiary facts are not required to be alleged. (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 26, 47; Lim v. The.TV Corp. Internat. (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 684, 690.) IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is directed to file and serve the amended pleading forthwith.
Ruling
Captial One, N.A. vs. Ward
Aug 02, 2024 |23CVG-01215
CAPITAL ONE, N.A. VS. WARDCase Number: 23CVG-01215Tentative Ruling on Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts beAdmitted: Plaintiff Capital One, N.A. seeks an order deeming the truth of matters specified in Plaintiff’s Requestfor Admissions, Set One. Despite being timely served, Defendant Leah Ward did not file an Opposition.When a party fails to respond to a request for admission, the requesting party may move for an order deeming thegenuineness of documents and the truth of matters specified in the requests admitted. CCP § 2033.280(b). Failureto respond also waives any objections to the discovery propounded. CCP § 2033.280(a). Plaintiff’s moving paperssufficiently demonstrate that Defendant has failed to respond to the Request for Admissions within the requiredtime frame.Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses when no responses have beenprovided does not require the propounding party to demonstrate good cause or that it satisfied a meet-and-conferrequirement. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th390. Despite there being no requirement to meet and confer, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant,through her former counsel, prior to filing the motion.Monetary sanctions are mandatory per CCP 2033.280(c), however, Plaintiff did not seek monetary sanctions andprovided no evidence regarding attorney’s fees or other costs associated with bringing the motion. Sanctionsshould only be imposed for “reasonable” expenses. CCP § 2023.030. The Court does not have information uponwhich to make a finding that any amount of sanctions were for reasonable expenses and should not imposesanctions.The motion is GRANTED. Defendant is deemed to have admitted as true each of the items contained inPlaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One. Objections are waived. Plaintiff provided a proposed Order thatwill be executed by the Court. The Court confirms the trial date of January 21, 2025.
Ruling
Captial One, N.A. vs. Ward
Jul 29, 2024 |23CVG-01215
CAPITAL ONE, N.A. VS. WARDCase Number: 23CVG-01215Tentative Ruling on Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts beAdmitted: Plaintiff Capital One, N.A. seeks an order deeming the truth of matters specified in Plaintiff’s Requestfor Admissions, Set One. Despite being timely served, Defendant Leah Ward did not file an Opposition.When a party fails to respond to a request for admission, the requesting party may move for an order deeming thegenuineness of documents and the truth of matters specified in the requests admitted. CCP § 2033.280(b). Failureto respond also waives any objections to the discovery propounded. CCP § 2033.280(a). Plaintiff’s moving paperssufficiently demonstrate that Defendant has failed to respond to the Request for Admissions within the requiredtime frame.Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses when no responses have beenprovided does not require the propounding party to demonstrate good cause or that it satisfied a meet-and-conferrequirement. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th390. Despite there being no requirement to meet and confer, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant,through her former counsel, prior to filing the motion.Monetary sanctions are mandatory per CCP 2033.280(c), however, Plaintiff did not seek monetary sanctions andprovided no evidence regarding attorney’s fees or other costs associated with bringing the motion. Sanctionsshould only be imposed for “reasonable” expenses. CCP § 2023.030. The Court does not have information uponwhich to make a finding that any amount of sanctions were for reasonable expenses and should not imposesanctions.The motion is GRANTED. Defendant is deemed to have admitted as true each of the items contained inPlaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One. Objections are waived. Plaintiff provided a proposed Order thatwill be executed by the Court. The Court confirms the trial date of January 21, 2025.
Ruling
CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC., vs MTC FLOORING SPECIALISTS LLC
Jul 30, 2024 |CVSW2307589
MOTION FOR ORDER TERMINATINGCREDITORS ADJUSTMENT SANCTIONS, STRIKING DEFENDANT'SBUREAU, INC., VS MTC ANSWER AND ENTERING DEFAULT;CVSW2307589FLOORING SPECIALISTS REQUEST FOR MONETARYLLC SANCTIONS BY CREDITORSADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC.,Tentative Ruling: Motion unopposed. Motion GRANTED.The Court in reviewing the entire record in this case finds the Defendant has not compliedwith the court’s order from April 16, 2024 to respond to Plaintiff's First Demand ForIdentification, Production, Inspection and Copying of Documents and Other Things ‘ whichDefendant was to respond to without objection within 15 calendar days. Further, theDefendant has failed to respond to Plaintiff’s attempts to meet and confer regarding thediscovery issues. The Court’s order from April 16, 2024 warned that non-compliance withthe court’s order may result in monetary sanctions. A terminating sanction should beused sparingly and only when less restrictive sanctions could be used to achieve thesame result. Here, the Defendant is not participating in these proceedings and aterminating sanction is warranted.Defendant’s answer is stricken and a judgment will be entered in favor of the Plaintiff.Monetary sanctions will be awarded to the Plaintiff - $525 in attorney’s fees plus $72.75in court costs for a total of $597.75 to be paid by Defendant within 30 days.Plaintiff to submit order consistent with this court’s ruling.
Ruling
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA vs. ROBERT CAMPBELL
Jul 31, 2024 |23CV13471
Parties, or counsel if represented, are ordered to appear personally or remotely to discuss the status of the case and to set trial dates. You must notify the court and all other parties that you intend to appear remotely using form RA-010. In addition to providing notice, a Zoom link must be requested no later than one (1) court day before the hearing and shall be submitted to the Court through the Court’s website at https://www.amadorcourt.org/gi-zoomRequestForm.aspx. Parties and counsel are ordered to meet and confer in advance regarding mutually available dates for trial.
Ruling
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs DERYKE
Aug 01, 2024 |CVMV2400647
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. MOTION TO COMPEL BY WELLSCVMV2400647vs DERYKE FARGO BANK, N.A.Tentative Ruling: Granted.All Requests for Admissions are deemed admitted by Defendant.
Document
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC v. BOYD, ADAM
Aug 01, 2024 |S15 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Purchase Debt |MMX-CV24-6042212-S
Document
LVNV FUNDING LLC v. BATHRICK, RUSSELL
Jul 31, 2024 |S15 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Purchase Debt |MMX-CV24-6042192-S
Document
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC v. MARTINEZ, MARTHA A
Jul 29, 2024 |S15 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Purchase Debt |MMX-CV24-6042160-S
Document
JUDGMENT ACQUISITIONS UNLIMITED v. WILLIAMS, CLIFTON
Jun 07, 2024 |S15 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Purchase Debt |MMX-CV24-6041569-S
Document
LVNV FUNDING LLC v. MATUSKIEWICZ, TERRY
Jul 31, 2024 |S15 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Purchase Debt |MMX-CV24-6042193-S
Document
LVNV FUNDING LLC v. BATHRICK, RUSSELL
Jul 31, 2024 |S15 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Purchase Debt |MMX-CV24-6042192-S
Document
LVNV FUNDING LLC v. AIVANO, IAN
Jul 31, 2024 |S15 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Purchase Debt |MMX-CV24-6042199-S
Document
LAUREL WREATH ACQUISITIONS, LLC v. DIKERSON, TRACEY
Jul 29, 2024 |S15 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Purchase Debt |MMX-CV24-6042154-S
