On October 20, 2016 a Stipulation,Agreement was filed involving a dispute between Rus Mbr, Llc , Shudrik, Ruslan , and Coastal Condominiums , Coastal Contruction Of South Florida Inc , Tower 3315, Llc , for Contract & Indebtedness in the District Court of Miami-Dade County.
Preview
Filing # 92392009 E-Filed 07/11/2019 12:19:14 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 2016-027202-CA-01 SECTION: CA24 JUDGE: Antonio Arzola RUSLAN SHUDRIK et al Plaintiff(s) / Petitioner(s) vs. TOWER 3315, LLC Defendant(s) / Respondent(s) / AGREED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT, COASTAL CONSTRUCTION GROUP OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC.'S MOTION TO AMEND CASE STYLE THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on Defendant, COASTAL CONSTRUCTION GROUP OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC’s., Motion to Amend the Case Style, this Court being otherwise fully advised on the premises and all the parties in agreement, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to Amend Case Style is GRANTED. 1. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to change the style of this case and substitute the Defendant, COASTAL CONSTRUCTION OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC. d/b/a COASTAL CONDOMINIUMS, instead of Defendant, COASTAL CONSTRUCTION GROUP OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC.CaseNo: 2016-027202-CA-01 Page 2 of 3 DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida on this 11th day of July, 2019. 2016-027202-CA-01 07-11-2019 12:12 PM Hon. Antonio Arzola CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE Electronically Signed No Further Judicial Action Required on CLERK TO RECLOSE CASE iF POST JUDGMENT Copies Furnished To: Anthony Starkey De Soto , Email : ddc@lydeckerdiaz.com Anthony Starkey De Soto , Email : sd@lydeckerdiaz.com Bolivar C Porta , Email : office@boporta.com Bolivar C Porta , Email : Lav@boporta.com Christopher L Barnett , Email : cordovam@gtlaw.com Christopher L Barnett , Email : barnettch@gtlaw.com Christopher L Barnett , Email : flservice@gtlaw.com Dean O. Meyers , Email : construction. -FTLW@csklegal.com Dean O. Meyers , Email : theresa. jackson@csklegal.com Dean O. Meyers , Email : dean.meyers@csklegal.com George R Truitt Jr. , Email : george.truitt@csklegal.com George R Truitt Jr. , Email : construction.miami@csklegal.com George R Truitt Jr. , Email : jessica.begona@csklegal.com Graham Smith , Email : smithgra@gtlaw.com Jeremy W Harris , Email : aharris@lydeckerdiaz.com Jeremy W Harris , Email : jharris@lydeckerdiaz.com Jonathan Newberg, Esq. , Email : jn@lydeckerdiaz.com Mark A Kamilar , Email : kamilar@bellsouth.net Mark A Kamilar , Email : mkamilarlaw@gmail.com Meliz Martin , Email : dde@lydeckerdiaz.comMeliz Martin , Email : mmartin@lydeckerdiaz.com Meliz Martin, Esq. , Email : mmartin@lydeckerdiaz.com Michael J. Thomas , Email : thomasmic@gtlaw.com Spencer Mallard , Email : sn@lydeckerdiaz.com Spencer Mallard , Email : aharris@lydeckerdiaz.com Spencer Mallard , Email : ddc@lydeckerdiaz.com Thomas A Oglesby , Email : construction.miami@csklegal.com Thomas A Oglesby , Email : katie.lopez@csklegal.com Thomas A Oglesby , Email : thomas.oglesby@csklegal.com Thomas Oglesby , Email : Thomas.Oglesby@csklegal.com Thomas Oglesby , Email : Katie.Lopez@csklegal.com CaseNo: 2016-027202-CA-01 Page 3 of 3
October 20, 2016
Aug 19, 2024 | CA13 - Downtown Miami - Judge Brinkley, Tanya | Contract & Indebtedness | Contract & Indebtedness | 2024-015696-CA-01
Aug 20, 2024 | CA06 - Downtown Miami - Judge Johnson, Charles | Contract & Indebtedness | Contract & Indebtedness | 2024-015755-CA-01
Aug 23, 2024 | CA25 - Downtown Miami - Judge Manno-Schurr, Valerie | Contract & Indebtedness | Contract & Indebtedness | 2024-016088-CA-01
Aug 15, 2024 | CA22 - Downtown Miami - Judge Butchko, Beatrice A | Contract & Indebtedness | Contract & Indebtedness | 2024-015676-CA-01
Aug 21, 2024 | CA09 - Downtown Miami - Judge Echarte Jr, Pedro P | Foreign Judgment - Circuit Civil | Foreign Judgment - Circuit Civil | 2024-015856-CA-01
Aug 21, 2024 | CA32 - Downtown Miami - Judge Fajardo Orshan, Ariana | Contract & Indebtedness | Contract & Indebtedness | 2024-015906-CA-01
Aug 23, 2024 | CA05 - Downtown Miami - Judge Del Rio, Vivianne | Contract & Indebtedness | Contract & Indebtedness | 2024-016102-CA-01
Aug 16, 2024 | CA22 - Downtown Miami - Judge Butchko, Beatrice A | Contract & Indebtedness | Contract & Indebtedness | 2024-015640-CA-01
Aug 21, 2024 | CA27 - Downtown Miami - Judge Thomas, William | Contract & Indebtedness | Contract & Indebtedness | 2024-015880-CA-01
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. MOTION TO LIFT THE NOTICE OF CVMV2301473 vs PINEDA CONDITIONAL SETTLEMENT STAY Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling. Appearance is required.
Case Number: 22SMCV01037 Hearing Date: August 23, 2024 Dept: 205 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles West District Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 20 5 COMPASS CONCIERGE LLC , Plaintiff, v. CARCASSONE FINE HOMES, LLC, et al., Defendant s . Case No.: 2 2 SMCV0 1 037 Hearing Date: August 2 3 , 202 4 [ TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL BACKGROUND This is a breach of contract case . Plaintiff Compass Concierge LLC entered into an agreement with Defendants Carcassone Fine Homes, LLC and Nile Niami to provide goods and/or services . Plaintiff claims Defendants breached the contract by failing to make $200,000 in payments due under the contract . The operative complaint alleges four claims for (1) breach of contract, (2) open book account, (3) account stated and (4) quantum meruit . On July 8, 2024, the Court held a n OSC re Plaintiffs failure to file default prove up papers as to Defendants who had been served but failed to appear . Plaintiff did not file a written response to the OSC , and also failed to file any default prove up papers . A ccordingly , the Court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute . (Ex. D to Chow Decl.) This hearing is on Plaintiff s motion to vacate the dismissal . Plaintiff argues that relief should be granted because default as to Defendant Niami was filed on June 27, 2024, before the OSC hearing on July 8, 2024, and default as to Defendant Carcassone Fine Homes LLC was filed but rejected due to a defective proof of service which Plaintiff has since corrected . (Ex. B to Chow Decl. ; Chow Decl. ¶ 5. ) There was no opposition filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling . LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to Code Civ . Proc . §473(b), both discretionary and mandatory relief are available to parties when a case is dismissed . Discretionary relief is available under the statute as the court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 473(b).) Alternatively, mandatory relief is available when accompanied by an attorneys sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. ( Id. ) The purpose of the attorney affidavit provision is to relieve the innocent client of the burden of the attorneys fault, to impose the burden on the erring attorney, and to avoid precipitating more litigation in the form of malpractice suits. ( Hu v. Fang (2002) 104 Cal.App.4 th 61, 64.) Mandatory relief is available even if counsels neglect was inexcusable . ( SJP Limited Partnership v. City of Los Angeles (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 511, 516517.) A n application for discretionary or mandatory relief must be made no more than six months after entry of the judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding from which relief is sought . (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b); English v. IKON Business Solutions (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 143.) [W]hen relief under section 473¿is¿available, there is a strong¿public¿policy¿in¿favor¿of granting relief and allowing the requesting party his or her day in court[.] ( Rappleyea v. Campbell ¿(1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975, 981-82.) Any doubt in applying section 473, subdivision (b), must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief . ( Bonzer v. City of Huntington Park (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th 1474,¿ 1477-1478.) Where relief is promptly sought and no prejudice would be done to the opposing party, only very slight evidence is required to justify the setting¿aside of a default . For this reason , orders denying relief under section 473 are carefully scrutinized on appeal. ( Rappleyea v. Campbell¿ (1994) 8 Cal..4th 975, 980;¿ Elston v. City of Turlock ¿(1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233.) DISCUSSION The mandatory relief provision of § 473(b) refer s to both default judgment or dismissal . The inclusion of dismissal by the Legislature was intended to put plaintiffs whose cases are dismissed for failing to respond to a dismissal motion on the same footing with defendants who are defaulted for failing to respond to an action. ( Jackson v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5 th 166, 175.) . However, although the language of the mandatory provision, on its face, affords relief from unspecified dismissals caused by attorney neglect, our courts have, through judicial construction, prevented it from being used indiscriminately by plaintiffs attorneys as a perfect escape hatch to undo dismissals of civil cases. ( Nacimiento Regional Water Management Advisory Committee v. Monterey County Water Resources Agency (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 961, 967 .) C ourts have construed the provision as reaching only dismissals that are procedurally equivalent to a default. ( Jackson , 32 Cal.App.4 th at 17 4 .) Dismissals that are sufficiently distinct from a default, thereby falling outside the scope of the mandatory provision, include dismissals for failure to prosecute, dismissals for failure to serve a complaint within three years, dismissals based on running of the statute of limitations and voluntary dismissals entered pursuant to settlement. ( Leader v. Health Industries of America Inc . (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 620.) Here, the dismissal was for failure to prosecute, namely that Plaintiff failed to file default prove-up papers . Accordingly , Plaintiff is not entitled to mandatory relief . However, the Court concludes Plaintiff is entitled to discretionary relief . Discretionary relief is available where there is mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect . (Code of Civ. Proc. § 473(b).) The mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect¿must¿be reasonable¿to justify discretionary relief.¿ ( Conway v. Municipal Court ¿(1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 1009, 1017 ; see¿ Carroll v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. ¿(1982) 32 Cal.3d 892, 898 . ) Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff attempted to comply with the Courts instruction to file default prove-up papers but the papers were either filed and not processed by the time of the OSC hearing on July 8, 2024 , or the papers were rejected due to defects in the proof of service which counsel has now corrected . (Chow Decl. ¶ 3.) Given the strong policy favoring a resolution of cases on their merits, the Court grants the motion to set aside dismissal. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff s motion to set aside dismissal . The action is reinstated . The C ourt sets a case management conference for October 1 , 2024 at 9:00 a.m . IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 2 3 , 2024 ___________________________ Edward B. Moreton, Jr. Judge of the Superior Court
MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. CVSW2401393 ADMISSIONS ADMITTED BY WELLS VS ZAVALA FARGO BANK, N.A. Tentative Ruling: Motion is unopposed. Motion is GRANTED. Requests for Admission propounded on April 25, 2024 are deemed admitted. Court to sign proposed order.
CV-22-005672 - WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs ZAMORA, FRANKIE R - Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted and of Nonappearance - GRANTED, and unopposed. The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(a).) Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff’s request. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c); St. Mary’s v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted. The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff.
JEFFERSON CAPITAL MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT CVSW2301883 SYSTEMS LLC VS BY JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS MCFARLIN LLC Tentative Ruling: Motion unopposed. Motion GRANTED. The court will sign the Proposed Judgment.
21CV-04009 Northern California Collection Service, Inc. v. Juan Lopez Order to Show Cause re Sanctions for Failure to Appear at July 17, 2024 Hearing Appearance optional. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of the court at (209) 725-4111 to seek permission and arrange for a remote appearance. Appear to address failure to appear at July 17, 2024 hearing. Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal-Notice of Settlement Appearance optional. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of the court at (209) 725-4111 to seek permission and arrange for a remote appearance. Appear to address the status of the Settlement.
ASPIRE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. ALLISON Case Number: 22CVG-00899 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of the case. The Court notes that Plaintiff has still not filed a Proof of Service of Summons. Monetary sanctions have already been imposed. The Court will issue an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for failure to timely serve and failure to timely prosecute. Hearing on the Order to Show Cause will be on Monday, November 4, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 63. The clerk is directed to prepare an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal. The matter will also be calendared on Monday, November 4, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 63 for review regarding status of service. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
DISCOVER BANK VS. HAGLER-MABRY Case Number: 24CVG-00462 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Quash Service of Summons: Defendant Deborah Hagler-Mabry moves to quash service of summons pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10 on the grounds of improper service. Defendant argues that personal service was improper, because the process server “tossed” the summons and complaint on the porch outside of Defendant’s home. Plaintiff opposes the Motion, arguing that the process server’s return establishes a rebuttable presumption of the facts stated in the return, pursuant to California Evidence Code section 647. Plaintiff has filed a verified return establishing a rebuttable presumption that Defendant was personally served on June 13, 2024. Defendant has not offered any admissible evidence to rebut the presumption. Merits: “When a defendant challenges the court's personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process the burden is on the plaintiff to prove … the facts requisite to an effective service.” Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 CA4th 403, 413, (internal quotes omitted); see Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 CA4th 1154, 1163. Delivering copies of the summons and complaint to defendant personally constitutes “personal service” of summons. CCP § 415.10. As long as the process server identifies himself or herself and tells the reluctant defendant that he or she is being served with process and leaves the papers as close as possible to the defendant, service is valid notwithstanding the defendant's refusal to accept. Trujillo v. Trujillo (1945) 71 CA2d 257, 260. California Evidence Code section 647 provides that the return of a process server registered pursuant to Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 22350) of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code upon process or notice establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in the return. Here, Plaintiff has provided a verified Proof of Service from a registered process server that establishes personal service of Defendant. The Summons and Complaint were delivered to Defendant at her home address on June 13, 2024. Defendant confirmed her identity to the process server by nodding when named. Defendant tried to refuse service by closing the door. The documents were left and seen by the Defendant. This constitutes valid personal service. Defendant has failed to offer any admissible evidence to rebut the presumption of the facts stated in the process server’s return as required by Evidence Code section 647. Service is valid and the Motion to Quash is DENIED. No proposed order has been lodged as required by Local Rule 5.17(D). Defendant shall prepare the order.
Aug 21, 2024 | CA30 - Downtown Miami - Judge Diaz, Reemberto | Contract & Indebtedness | Contract & Indebtedness | 2024-015965-CA-01
Aug 20, 2024 | CA21 - Downtown Miami - Judge Miller, David C | Contract & Indebtedness | Contract & Indebtedness | 2024-015870-CA-01
Aug 20, 2024 | CA22 - Downtown Miami - Judge Butchko, Beatrice A | Contract & Indebtedness | Contract & Indebtedness | 2024-015857-CA-01
Aug 20, 2024 | CA06 - Downtown Miami - Judge Johnson, Charles | Contract & Indebtedness | Contract & Indebtedness | 2024-015859-CA-01
Jun 16, 2023 | CA43 - Downtown Miami - Judge Rebull, Thomas | Contract & Indebtedness | Contract & Indebtedness | 2023-018519-CA-01
Aug 21, 2024 | CA09 - Downtown Miami - Judge Echarte Jr, Pedro P | Foreign Judgment - Circuit Civil | Foreign Judgment - Circuit Civil | 2024-015856-CA-01
Aug 19, 2024 | CA07 - Downtown Miami - Judge Trawick, Daryl E | Contract & Indebtedness | Contract & Indebtedness | 2024-015673-CA-01
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.