SUMMONS - NOT SERVED Doc # 19 06242024 Party: UNKNOWN TENANTS 1 July 10, 2024 (2024)

Case

AVBH BEL AIR LLC Vs. WALTER JENNINGS.et al

Jan 23, 2024 |BEDINGHAUS, SUSAN |RESIDENTIAL EVICTION POSSESSION ONLY (NON-MONETARY) |RESIDENTIAL EVICTION POSSESSION ONLY (NON-MONETARY) |24-000659-CO

Case

ALL OVER SOLUTIONS LLC Vs. JERRY CHATTERTEN

Jan 09, 2024 |BEDINGHAUS, SUSAN |UNLAWFUL DETAINER |UNLAWFUL DETAINER |24-000259-CO

Case

CARILLON ACQUISITION LP Vs. JENNIFER LYNN GARDNER

Jan 31, 2024 |BEDINGHAUS, SUSAN |RESIDENTIAL EVICTION POSSESSION ONLY (NON-MONETARY) |RESIDENTIAL EVICTION POSSESSION ONLY (NON-MONETARY) |24-000932-CO

Case

WELLS FARGO BANK N A Vs. THE UNKNOWN HEIRS DEVISEES GRANTEES ASSIGNEES.et al

Aug 29, 2024 |WILLIAMS, AMY M |REAL PROP/MTGE FRCL NON-HOMESTEAD RES2 $50,001 - $249,999 |REAL PROP/MTGE FRCL NON-HOMESTEAD RES2 $50,001 - $249,999 |24-003910-CI

Case

THE BEACON ON 3RD STREET CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Vs. JEFFREY KINNER, et al

May 16, 2024 |RAMSBERGER, THOMAS M |DELINQUENT TENANT - CIRCUIT |DELINQUENT TENANT - CIRCUIT |24-002167-CI

Case

PACIFICA FOREST LAKES LLC Vs. TIFFANY BYRD

Jan 16, 2024 |CARASSAS, JOHN |RESIDENTIAL EVICTION POSSESSION ONLY (NON-MONETARY) |RESIDENTIAL EVICTION POSSESSION ONLY (NON-MONETARY) |24-000464-CO

Case

SOMDETH INTHALANGSY.et al Vs. JOSEPH VISCIANO.et al

Jun 07, 2024 |JIROTKA, GEORGE M |REAL PROP/MTGE FRCL NON-HOMESTEAD RES3 $250,000 OR MORE |REAL PROP/MTGE FRCL NON-HOMESTEAD RES3 $250,000 OR MORE |24-002550-CI

Case

LAKEWORTH COLONY LLC Vs. SALLY L CUTTER.et al

Jan 10, 2024 |BEDINGHAUS, SUSAN |RESIDENTIAL EVICTION POSSESSION ONLY (NON-MONETARY) |RESIDENTIAL EVICTION POSSESSION ONLY (NON-MONETARY) |24-000286-CO

Case

BRANDYWINE MULTIFAMILY PARTNERS LLC Vs. KENDRA WILSON

Jan 26, 2024 |BEDINGHAUS, SUSAN |RESIDENTIAL EVICTION POSSESSION ONLY (NON-MONETARY) |RESIDENTIAL EVICTION POSSESSION ONLY (NON-MONETARY) |24-000800-CO

Ruling

NADIA KAMEL ALJOJO VS ADNAN ALJOJO

Aug 29, 2024 |22STCV09355

Case Number: 22STCV09355 Hearing Date: August 29, 2024 Dept: 54 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Nadia Kamel Salem, Plaintiff, Case No.: 22STCV09355 vs. Tentative Ruling Adnan Mohamed Aljojo, Amwest Funding Corp., and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants. Hearing Date: August 29, 2024 Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens Moving Party: Defendant Adnan Aljojo Responding Party: Plaintiff Nadia Kamel Salem T/R: THE MOTION TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS IS DENIED. DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS FEES IS DENIED. PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS FEES IS GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,650.00. DEFENDANT TO NOTICE. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply. BACKGROUND On April 21, 2022, Plaintiff Nadia Kamel Salem filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) against Defendants Adnan Mohamed Aljojo; and Amwest Funding Corp., for cancellation of written instrument by fraud in factum and non-delivery. On July 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Lis Pendens. Plaintiffs earlier lis pendens had been vacated because Plaintiff failed to comply with certain rules. Defendant Aljojo now moves for an order expunging the lis pendens. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Defendant Aljojos requests for judicial notice are GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code Sections 452, subdivision (d) and 453, as to the existence of the documents, but not as to the truth of the matters in them. ANALYSIS When a motion to expunge a lis pendens is filed, the burden is on the opposing party to show that the complaint contains allegations of a real-property claim, and to show the probable validity of the claim, based on a preponderance of evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 405.32, 405.31, 405.30; Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal. App. 4th 314, 319.) [T]he court shall order that the notice be expunged if the court finds that the claimant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of the real property claim. The court shall not order an undertaking to be given as a condition of expunging the notice if the court finds the claimant has not established the probable validity of the real property claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 405.32.) A. Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens Defendant Aljojo moves to expunge the lis pendens recorded by Plaintiff on July 9, 2024, concerning 600 N. Plymouth Blvd/5421 Clinton Street, Los Angeles, CA 90004. Aljojo contends Plaintiff cannot show the probable validity of her real property claim, and that Plaintiff failed to comply with the service and filing requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 405.22. Aljojo contends Plaintiffs claim is barred by the statute of limitations because the purported fraudulent transfer of the Property by Plaintiff to Aljojo occurred in January 2016 and Plaintiff knew or suspected the fraud in 2017. Aljojo also asserts that the 2017 eviction proceeding he filed against Plaintiffs son (Aljojos brother) put Plaintiff on notice five years before filing this action. Aljojo argues that title to the Property is in his name, which is prima facie evidence of his title. Likewise, Aljojo contends in August 2017, Plaintiff provided two videos admitting in Arabic that the property belongs to him. And Aljojo argues that the U.S. Vice Consul would have explained the nature and consequences of the document to be notarized to Plaintiff. In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that Aljojos deposition testimony demonstrates he forged documents on her behalf without her knowledge or consent. Plaintiff submits declarations from persons purporting to have witnessed Aljojos acts of fraud. Plaintiff asserts that the Court previously adopted the five-year statute of limitations period for cancellation of deed. Plaintiff points to the Courts denial of the motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of material fact concerning her delayed discovery. Plaintiff contends she was not aware of the 2017 demand letter, nor of the existence of the deed transferring the Property until 2022. And Plaintiff contends equitable estoppel bars the statute of limitations defense because Aljojo coerced her into recording a video where she made misleading statements that she did not fully understand. The Court finds that the evidence presented by Plaintiff, including but not limited to Aljojos deposition testimony, supporting declarations from other family members, and Plaintiffs own declaration, are sufficient to show by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of her real property claim. The proof of service attached to the Notice of Lis Pendens indicates it was served on all parties on July 8, 2024. Aljojos Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens is DENIED. B. Request for Attorneys Fees The court shall direct that the party prevailing on any motion under this chapter be awarded the reasonable attorneys fees and costs of making or opposing the motion unless the court finds that the other party acted with substantial justification or that other circ*mstances make the imposition of attorneys fees and costs unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 405.38.) Plaintiff seeks $6,650.00 in attorney fees, for (1) 11.5 hours reviewing the motion, preparing the opposition and supporting papers and (2) an anticipated 2.5 hours reviewing the reply and preparing for and attending the hearing, at an hourly rate of $475.00 per hour. These are reasonable. Aljojo has not shown he was substantially justified in bringing this motion; nor has Aljojo shown any other reason that imposing attorneys fees would be unjust. Defendants request for attorneys fees is DENIED. Plaintiffs request for attorneys fees is GRANTED in the amount of $6,650.00.

Ruling

SIXTH STREET REALTY, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VS ALPHA REALTY ESTATE ADVISORS, LLC, ET AL.

Aug 27, 2024 |23SMCV01097

Case Number: 23SMCV01097 Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 Dept: 207 TENTATIVE RULING DEPARTMENT 207 HEARING DATE August 27, 2024 CASE NUMBER 23SMCV01097 MOTION Motion for Summary Judgment MOVING PARTY Plaintiff Sixth Street Realty, L.P. OPPOSING PARTY Defendant Dalton Barnes MOVING PAPERS: Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities Declaration of Jeff Segal Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts Notice of Errata OPPOSITION PAPERS: 1. Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities 2. Response to Plaintiffs Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts 3. Declaration of Dalton Barnes 4. Declaration of Stephanie R. Perez REPLY PAPERS: 1. Reply in support of Motion for Summary Judgment BACKGROUND On October 5, 2023, Plaintiff Sixth Street Realty, L.P. (Plaintiff) filed the operative Second Amended Complaint alleging two causes of action for (1) breach of lease (unpaid rents) against Defendant Alpha Real Estate Advisors, LLC (Alpha) and (2) breach of written guarantee against Defendants Braden Crocket (Crocket); and Dalton Barnes (Barnes). Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment as to all Defendants. Barnes opposes the motion and Plaintiff replies. Alpha and Crocket have not filed oppositions to the motion. LEGAL STANDARDS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.] There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof. ¿(Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 (hereafter Aguilar).) ¿[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact. ¿(Ibid.; Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1474 [summary judgment standards held by Aguilar apply to summary adjudication motions].) Further, the trial court may not weigh the evidence in the manner of a factfinder to determine whose version is more likely true. Nor may the trial court grant summary judgment based on the court's evaluation of credibility. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th. at p. 840 [cleaned up]; see also Weiss v. People ex rel. Department of Transportation (2020) 9 Cal.5th 840, 864 [Courts deciding motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication may not weigh the evidence but must instead view it in the light most favorable to the opposing party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party].) DISCUSSION To prevail on a cause of action for breach of contract, the plaintiff must prove (1) the contract, (2) the plaintiff's performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damage to the plaintiff. (Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1186.) Similarly, A lender is entitled to judgment on a breach of guaranty claim based upon undisputed evidence that (1) there is a valid guaranty, (2) the borrower has defaulted, and (3) the guarantor failed to perform under the guaranty. (Gray1 CPB, LLC v. Kolokotronis (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 480, 486.) Plaintiffs Evidence Here, Plaintiff has produced the following evidence: · Plaintiff and Alpha entered into a written lease agreement, commencing on May 1, 2022 and ending November 30, 2025, with a base rent of $11,982.30, to increase 3% annually after each year, plus Alphas share of operating expenses. (UMF Nos. 1-4.) · Defendant Barnes and Crocket each signed a written personal guarantee of the Lease. (UMF Nos. 5-6.) · Alpha was in possession of the premises from May 1, 2022 until June 16, 2023, when it voluntarily surrendered possession to Plaintiff. (UMF No. 7.) · Alpha did not make any lease payments from April 1, 2023 through June 30, 2023. (UMF No. 8.) · Plaintiff listed the Premises for lease with a broker three days after it obtained possession from Alpha, and ultimately leased the premises to a new tenant beginning October 1, 2023, for a monthly rental rate of $9,852.50. (UMF Nos. 9-10.) · Plaintiff suffered damages of $40,309 for unpaid rent and operating expenses from April 1, 2023 through June 30, 2023; $38,556.96 for unpaid rent, operating expenses, and late fees for the period July 1, 2023 through September 30, 2023 while the premises remained vacant before the new tenant moved in; and Plaintiff will incur damages of $113,530.85 in the differential between the rent Alpha committed to pay and the rent the new tenant will pay from October 1, 2023 through November 30, 2025; plus an additional $15,377.78 in necessary repairs for damages caused by Alpha and credit to the new tenant for improvements, totaling $195,792.20, after deducting Alphas security deposit of $11,982.39 from the amount owed. (UMF Nos. 8, 11-13, 15.) · Plaintiff has performed all of the conditions, covenants and obligations required to be performed under the Lease and the personal guarantee. (UMF No. 14.) Thus, Plaintiff has met its initial burdens of production and persuasion that there exists a written contract, Plaintiff performed under the contract, but Alpha did not, resulting in damages to Plaintiff. Similarly, Plaintiff has demonstrated that that Crockett and Barnes signed a personal guarantee of the lease agreement, but that an outstanding balance remains due, meaning Crockett and Barnes failed to perform under the guarantee when Alpha defaulted on the rent. Defendant Barnes Evidence Barnes disputes the damages Plaintiff claims it is entitled to. Specifically, Barnes has advanced evidence that Defendant Alpha engaged Rafael Padilla of PAR, Plaintiffs agent, to sublease the unit in January of 2023[1] after Barnes informed Plaintiff of Defendant Alphas difficulties paying rent, who was able to find tenants to lease neighboring vacant units, but was unable to find a tenant for the unit at issue and Plaintiff was unwilling to entertain other alternatives besides a sublease. (Barnes Depo 24:16-26:7; 26:23-27-7; 32:2-9; 33:10-34:7.) Specifically, Barnes produces evidence that Alpha offered to sell or sublease the furniture as part of the sublease agreement, but Plaintiff never responded to that offer. (Barnes Depo 35:2-16.) Barnes response to the separate statement also indicates that Alpha offered to pay an early termination fee to terminate the lease agreement, but there is no evidence of this in the record. Barnes evidence does not demonstrate Plaintiff failed to mitigate its damages. Granted, had Plaintiff agreed to lower the rent for Alpha, accept an early termination fee to let Alpha out of the lease agreement, and/or accept furniture in lieu of rent payments, the damages Alpha could recover in this lawsuit would be reduced, but Plaintiff was not required to change the terms of the lease agreement to accept less or different payment terms than it was originally entitled to. Barnes also produces deposition testimony that despite being marketed as ready for high-speed internet, the space was not capable of high-speed internet when Alpha moved in and Alpha had to have high-speed internet installed at its own expense. Further, Barnes indicates in deposition testimony that pursuant to the lease, Plaintiff was supposed to update the carpet at Plaintiffs expense, but Alpha ultimately paid for the carpeting and other interior improvements to the unit. (Barnes Depo at pp. 20:10-21:4.) The Court notes that Paragraph 7 of the lease agreement provides: 7. CONSTRUCTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF PREMISES. (a) Construction. Except for the Tenant Improvements specifically set forth in Exhibit "9" attached hereto, which shall be constructed at Landlord's sole cost and expense (except as expressly specified on Exhibit "8"), Landlord shall not provide or pay for any Improvement work related to the Improvement of the Premises. The existing leasehold improvements in the Premises as of the date of this Lease, together with the Tenant Improvements and all initial leasehold improvements performed by Tenant, may be collectively referred to herein as the 'Tenant Improvements." Absent written notice from Tenant to Landlord within thirty (30) days after Tenants taking possession of the Premises, there shall be a conclusive presumption that the Building, the Premises and the Tenant Improvements, are in good and tenantable condition. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to Landlord Improvements of which the Premises are a part and, as well, with respect to Tenant Improvements constructed by Landlord, Landlord shall have an affirmative obligation, at Landlord's cast, to correct any defects about which it receives written notice from Tenant within said thirty (30) day period, unless such defects result from Tenant's negligence or willful misconduct. (Exhibit 1 to Segal Decl.) However, Exhibits 8 and 9 to Alphas lease agreement are not in the record, nor is there evidence in the record of Alphas timely written notice to Plaintiff of any defects, obligating Plaintiff to pay for the high-speed internet or carpet. Therefore, Barnes has not created a triable issue of material fact that the damages should be offset by the costs Alpha incurred on making internal improvements to the space. Finally, Barnes contends that the lease agreement for the new tenant indicates base rent is $10,552.50 per month, not the $9,852.50 indicated in Jeff Segals declaration, and the lease addendum further conflicts with these numbers by indicating the monthly rent starts at $9,852.50 and climbs to $10,495.15 between October 2023 and September 2026. The new tenants lease addendum contains the following rent schedule: With respect to Section 1 (c) of the Lease, "Base Rent": Months 1-11 = $9,852 50 (October 2023 - August 2024) Month 12 = $4,952.50 (September 2024) Month 13-23 = $10,169 08 (October 2024 - August 2025) Month 24 = $5,169.08 (September 2025) Months 25-35 = $10,495.15 (October 2025-August 2026) Month 36 = $5,495.15 (September 2026). (Ex. 4 to Segal Decl.) This is not inconsistent. The operative lease agreement with the new tenant, which includes the addendum, provides for a base rent of $9,852.50 beginning in October 2023, and following the schedule as outlined above. Further, Plaintiff attached as Exhibit 5 to the Segal declaration a chart demonstrating the difference between the amount of rent Alpha was obligated to pay and the amount of rent the new tenant paid, which is consistent with the above schedule and totals Plaintiffs requested $113,530.85 for rent between October 2023 and September 2026. Therefore, Barnes has not created a triable issue of material fact that the damages requested by Plaintiff are erroneous or should otherwise be subject to an offset. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in its entirety. Further, the Court orders Plaintiff to file and serve a proposed Order and Judgment in conformity with the Courts ruling on or before September 10, 2024. Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Courts ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith. DATED: August 27, 2024 ___________________________ Michael E. Whitaker Judge of the Superior Court [1] Barnes separate statement erroneously indicates January 2022, but the underlying deposition testimony indicates January 2023 (See Barnes Depo at p. 26:6.)

Ruling

SAN REMO ENTERPRISES, L.P. VS SYBIL JUNI, ET AL.

Aug 30, 2024 |6/18/2022 |24SMCV01172

Case Number: 24SMCV01172 Hearing Date: August 30, 2024 Dept: I The matter is here for an FSC. The FSC order was recently givenApril 22, 2024. The matter moved quickly because it is an unlawful detainer. On August 27, 2024, the court received the following FSC documents: (1) Joint Statement of the Case; (2) Joint Exhibit List with 34 exhibitsthere are no objections noted in the objection column, which the court understands to mean that there are no objections to the introduction of any of the exhibits; (3) Joint Witness List with 15 witnesses (although some are duplicated, indicating that the particular witness will be called in plaintiffs case and defendants case) for a total of 20 hours of expected direct and cross examination; (4) Joint Jury Instructions all of which seem to be CACI instructions and to which the court has seen no objections; (5) Defendants Special Verdict Form, to which the court has seen no objection from plaintiff nor has the court seen a plaintiffs proposed instruction form, from which the court infers plaintiff accepts defendants form. The court assumes that this filing supersedes the materials filed on August 23, 2024. The court is also in receipt of defendants untimely motion in limine 1 to exclude any witness not disclosed in discovery. It is DENIED both because it is untimely and because the court would need to understand the specifics of each witness to be called who was purportedly not disclosed. The court will also inquire to be sure that possession is still at issue because that is the basis for the speedy trial datejumping this case ahead of many others. The court has not received the following documents: (1) Trial Briefsbut they are optional in this court where there is a jury trial; (2) Statement of Unusual Issuesthe absence of which suggests that there are none; (3) Jury Questionnairethe absence of which suggests that neither party wants a questionnaire; (4) Deposition Chartthe absence of which means that neither party intends to introduce any deposition testimony other than for impeachment; (5) Updated Trial Estimate, but the court will assume that the estimate of 3 days remains. Accordingly, although some documents are missing, many are optional and others are likely unnecessary. Given that, the court deems the matter READY FOR TRIAL. Because this is a UD case, it will have priority over any other trial on the courts docket with one exception. The court is presently engaged in a jury trial and the trial is expected to continue next week. The court has an assurance from counsel in that case that the matter will be concluded by the end of the week of September 9, although the court is hopeful that it will be concluded sooner than that. Because the court is engaged in trial, the court will give the parties the following options: (1) the court will continue the case to a date in the near future, but the parties will need to understand that there remains the risk that the court will be engaged at that time as well or that there may be another UD case; or (2) this case will trail the case now being tried and begin immediately after that case concludes, which will almost certainly not be before September 9, 2024 (which means that the court is willing to excuse the parties from checking in daily until then). If the parties elect to trail, the court will expect trial materials on the first day of trial. The materials will be as set forth below. TRIAL PROCEDURES The court does not know if the parties have retained a court reporter. If not, then the parties are ORDERED at the conclusion of each day of trial to have lead counsel MEET AND CONFER to arrive at an agreed settled statement. The meeting will last until the earlier of: (1) reaching an agreement; or (2) midnight. No later than 9:30 on the following court day, the parties will submit the agreed statement to the court. If the parties cannot agree, they will submit plaintiffs proposal red-lined against defendants proposal. On even numbered calendar days, plaintiffs will be responsible for the submission. On odd numbered calendar days, defendants will be responsible for the submission. (That refers to the day of the month for the trial, not the day of submission.) Alternatively, the parties may elect to waive appeal, although the court STRONGLY ADVISES AGAINST IT. The point of the settled statement is to have a record for appeal of what occurred during the trial (beyond that reflected in the Clerks Transcript). If there is no appeal, there is no need for the statement. The reason that the court is ordering daily meetings is because too often the process begins after the notice of appeal is filed, which could be months after the trial has concluded. By that time, memories have fadedespecially the courts memory. Yet the parties must either agree or the court must settle the statement. In the courts experience, the sooner that is done, the better. If there is a court reporter, of course, then this is not needed. The court holds trials Monday through Thursday, starting at 10:30. Fridays are reserved for other matters. The court has an ELMO available for the parties use. Other technology must be provided by the parties and the parties need to work with court staff to be sure that it will be up and running as needed. The court does not appreciate speaking objections. The parties should be very careful not to divulge the contents of a document or an exhibit to the jury through questioning until the document or exhibit has been admitted. The parties will lodge on the first day of trial the following trial notebooks. Volume 1: (1) The operative complaint; (2) the operative answer; (3) any substantive rulings made by the court that are binding at trial; (4) the witness list; (5) the exhibit list; (6) the short statement of the case; and (7) motions in limine and rulings. Volume 2: Jury Instructions as they are to be read to the jury (meaning no brackets or the like). Volume 3: Exhibit binder. The parties will also lodge the deposition transcripts of any witnesses on the witness list. The parties should also inform the court before the jury venire is brought in whether they want to do mini-openings to the venire. If they do, they will be limited to 5 minutes per side. For voir dire, the court generally gives the venire an introductory statement and reads the short statement of the case. The court then allows the parties to give mini-openings if they have chosen to do so. The court then gives additional information about the casesuch as the list of witnesses and the estimated length. The court then deals with hardships, releasing jurors for the remainder of the day who do not claim hardship. The court asks the parties to meet and confer regarding any jurors to which they will stipulate there is a hardship or to which they both believe there is no hardship. The court then conducts the examination. While the court encourages agreement of the parties, the final hardship decision is the courts alone. Note that this is before voir dire. The remaining venire typically convenes the next day and voir dire begins. The court generally uses a six-pack procedure. Voir dire begins with the court, then with plaintiffs, and then goes to defendants. Voir dire may be had as to all 18 jurors first selected, although the court will discuss whether voir dire can be had as to the entire venire (it depends on how many there are in the venire). When voir dire is concluded, the court will typically excuse the jury or conduct a side-bar with counsel to discuss challenges for cause. The defense goes first and makes all challenges for cause the defense wishes to make. A challenge for cause can be made as to any juror for whom there was voir dire. After the defense, plaintiffs will make their challenges for cause. When those challenges are resolved, the successfully challenged jurors are excused, the venire reconvenes, and the box is filled to the extent of successful cause challenges. After that, plaintiffs and defendants may exercise peremptory challenges, alternating between plaintiffs and defendants with plaintiffs going first. Peremptory challenges may only be made to the 12 jurors in the box. A pass by one side does not use a challenge nor does it establish that the remaining jurors are immune from peremptory challenge. If the box cannot be filled due to challenges, additional names will be called for the six pack. Voir dire will then go forward as to the newly-called prospective jurors only, after which the court will go through the cause procedure (as to the newly called jurors only) and then peremptory challenges, which can be made against any juror in the box. If a party makes a Batson/Wheeler motion, it must do so before the challenged juror is actually excused. The reason is so that the court can re-seat the juror if the challenge is successful. When the 12 members of the jury are chosen, the court will utilize a similar procedure regarding alternates, still using the six pack. The jurors are usually sworn when the panel and alternates have been selected. In the event that a second venire is needed, the court will discuss procedure with the parties. The court reminds the parties that, while some latitude is allowed during voir dire, the court will not allow pre-conditioning of the panel.

Ruling

Mark Hicks vs. Jerreece Jackson

Aug 27, 2024 |23CECG04303

Re: Hicks v. Jackson Superior Court Case No. 23CECG04303Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 (Dept. 403)Motion: (1) Cross-Defendant Hicks’ Demurrer to Second Amended Cross-Complaint (2) Cross-Complainant Jackson’s Motion to Strike Demurrer to Second Amended Cross-Complaint (3) Cross-Complainant Jackson’s Motion to Strike Answer to Second Amended Cross-ComplaintTentative Ruling: To take off calendar Cross-Defendant Hicks’ demurrer to the Second AmendedCross-Complaint, as no moving papers were filed with the court. To find moot Cross-Complainant Jackson’s Motion to Strike the Demurrer to theSecond Amended Cross-Complaint, as the motion is off calendar. To take off calendar Cross-Complainant Jackson’s Motion to Strike Cross-Defendant Hicks’ answer to the Second Amended Cross-Complaint.Explanation: Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 provides in pertinent part, “Unless otherwiseordered or specifically provided for by law, all moving and supporting papers shall beserved and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing.” (Code Civ. Proc., §1005, subd.(b).) The proof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than five court daysbefore the hearing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300, subd. (d).) Cross-complainant filed her motion to strike Mark Hicks’ answer to the SecondAmended Cross-Complaint on August 9, 2024 with a hearing date of August 27, 2024. Themoving papers were filed with fewer than 16 court days before the hearing on themotion. Moreover, there is no proof of service accompanying the moving papersdemonstrating timely notice of the motion to all parties. Accordingly, the motion is takenoff calendar for failure to timely file and serve the moving papers. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Proceduresection 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute orderadopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerkwill constitute notice of the order.Tentative RulingIssued By: JS on 8/21/2024 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)

Ruling

ALEX YUTKOVSKY VS NOHO 10 LLC, ET AL.

Aug 30, 2024 |23STCV00233

Case Number: 23STCV00233 Hearing Date: August 30, 2024 Dept: 40 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 40 ALEX YUTKOVSKY, Trustee of the Alex Yutkovsky Living Trust, Plaintiff, v. NOHO 10 LLC, a California limited liability company; ARTUR NESTERENKO, an individual; GERMAN NESTERENKO, an individual; GERMAN SIMAKOVSKI, aka Greg Simakovski, an individual; BRONZETREE TERRACES, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; and DOES 3 through 50, inclusive. Defendants. Case No.: 23STCV00233 Hearing Date: August 30, 2024 Trial Date: January 14, 2025 [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Motion to Compel Discovery Responses of Defendant German Simakovski (Special Interrogatories, Set One) and Request for Sanctions [CCP § 2030.290(c)] [RES ID:8241] Motion to Compel Discovery Responses of Defendant German Simakovski (Form Interrogatories, Set One) and Request for Sanctions [CCP § 2030.290(c)] [RES ID:8986] Background Plaintiff Alex Yutkovsky, Trustee of the Alex Yutkovsky Living Trust, (Yutkovsky) sues Defendants NOHO 10 LLC (NOHO), Artur Nesterenko, German Nesterenko, German Simakovski a/k/a Greg Simakovski (Simakovski), Bronzetree Terraces, LLC (Bronzetree), and Does 3 through 50 (collectively Defendants) pursuant to a July 21, 2023 Second Amended Complaint (SAC) alleging claims of (1) Fraud, (2) Theft by False Pretenses, (3) Aiding and Abetting Theft by False Pretenses, (4) Breach of Written Contract, (5) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (6) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, (7) Cancellation of Instrument, and (8) Declaratory Relief. The claims are based on allegations that Plaintiff Yutkovsky is a victim of a complex fraud carried out by Defendants German and Artur Nesterenko, managers of NOHO. According to the allegations, with assistance from the other Defendants, including Simakovski, Yutkovsky was persuaded to loan $1,056,000 to the Defendants. This loan was secured by a deed of trust on real property, with Yutkovsky's security interest being second in priority among secured lenders. The Defendants are accused of forging documents to fraudulently record a Substitution of Trustee and Full Reconveyance (the Reconveyance) of Yutkovskys deed of trust. This action extinguished Yutkovskys lien, allowing the Defendants to abscond with Yutkovskys funds. The original Complaint in this action was filed on January 5, 2023. On February 3, 2023, Yutkovsky filed his First Amended Complaint. On July 21, 2023 Yutkovsky filed the Second Amended Complaint (SAC). Defendant Greg Simakovski answered the SAC on September 1, 2023. On March 18, 2024, Yutkovsky served Simakovski with Requests for Admission (Set One), Requests for Production of Documents (Set One), Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Special Interrogatories (Set One). On May 6, 2024, Yutkovsky filed a motion to deem the requests for admissions served on Simakovski be admitted and for monetary sanctions of $3,912.95. The hearing was originally scheduled for July 26, 2024. The Court continued the hearing to August 23, 2024 (Min. Order at p.1, July 17, 2024.) On June 11, 2024, Yutkovsky filed three motions to compel the discovery responses of Simakovski for the requests for production of documents, form interrogatories and special interrogatories. On the motion to compel discovery responses for form interrogatories, Yutkovsky requests $1,887.95 in monetary sanctions. On the motion to compel discovery responses for special interrogatories, Yutkovsky requests $2,787.95 in monetary sanctions. On August 20, 2024, Simakovski in propria persona opposed the motion to deem the requests for admissions admitted, explaining that he did not respond to the discovery requests on time because his attorney did not communicate the requests to him. (Opp. at p. 2, lines 10-13; Decl. at p. 5, lines 4-7.) As a result, he did not receive actual notice of the requests until after the deadline had passed. (Opp. at p. 2, lines 14-15.) Simakovski argued that he has since submitted responses to all the discovery requests in question, attaching copies to his opposition, however, the responses are not accompanied by any verification. (Opp. at p. 2, 20-24, Exh 3.) Yutkovsky did not file any Reply. On August 23, 2024, the Court heard oral argument on both the Motion for Order that Requests for Admission be deemed admitted (RFA Motion) and on the Motion to Compel Discovery Responses for Requests for Production (RFP Motion). Simakovski argued orally that he had in fact provided such verifications, but none were provided to the Court as of the time of the hearing. The Court granted the RFA Motion and ordered sanctions of $3,012.95. (Min. Order at p.2, August 26, 2024.) The Court also granted the RFP Motion and ordered sanctions of $2,112.95. (Min. Order at p.2, August 26, 2024.) Now before the Court are the following motions: (1) motion to compel discovery responses for special interrogatories and for monetary sanctions of $2,787.95; and (2) motion to compel discovery responses for form interrogatories and for monetary sanctions of $1,887.95. Motion to Compel Discovery Responses, Special Interrogatories Legal Standard - Motion to Compel Discovery Responses A motion to compel an initial response can be made on the ground that a party did not serve a timely response to interrogatories or a demand to produce. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (a) [demand to produce]; see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404 (Sinaiko).) Failing to respond to a demand within the time permitted waives all objections to the demandincluding claims of privilege and work product. (CCP § 2031.300(a)) However, the court may grant relief from such waiver. To obtain such relief, the party to whom the demand is directed must have: (1) belatedly served a response that is in substantial compliance with Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280; and (2) filed a noticed motion supported by declarations showing that the delay resulted from mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect. (CCP § 2031.300(a)) Discussion Here, Yutkovsky served Simakovski with Form Interrogatories (Set One), and Special Interrogatories (Set One) on March 18, 2024. Responses were due by April 19, 2024. CCP §§ 1013(a), 2033.250(a). Yutkovsky received no responses from Simakovski and subsequently filed these motions to compel discovery. On June 23, 2024, prior to the hearing on the motion, Simakovski submitted his responses to the Form Interrogatories (Set One) (Opp. Ex. 3) [The Proof of Service for the Form Interrogatories mistakenly refers to Special Interrogatories]. On August 20, 2024, he submitted his responses to the Special Interrogatories (Set One) (Opp. Ex. 3). Although Simakovski did not timely file his responses to the interrogatories, he subsequently submitted his responses and explained that the delay was due to an error by his attorney. However, Simakovski did not include or attach to his opposition brief any evidence that his responses were verified. Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all. (Allen-Pacific, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1546, 1551.) Under the code, responses to interrogatories need to be signed under oath, unless the response contains only objections. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.250 subd. (a).) Here, the responses to the interrogatories attached to the Opposition did not contain only objections. (See Opp. Ex. 3). After the hearing on the first two motions, this Court was informed an email was apparently sent by Simakovski to the judicial assistant for Department 40 purportedly providing some evidence relevant to this case. The Court did not review that email in any detail, other than to determine who it was from. Recognizing that Simakovski is self-represented, the Court takes this opportunity to clarify that email does not substitute for filing. A judge can only consider matters that are filed in court. To do otherwise could risk engaging in impermissible ex parte (or one-sided) communications in which the other party is not aware of what is being communicated. (Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3, subd. (B)(7) [A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, that is, communications to or from the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding and shall make reasonable efforts to avoid such communications].) Moreover, failure to file documents in the court file creates an incomplete record which, among other problems, is impossible to review, as it cannot be determined what is being cited or relied upon. To be clear, the Court allows email for the parties convenience for scheduling, administrative, or emergencies that do not deal with substantive matters provided, as well as to provide courtesy copies of documents that have already been filed with the Court, or when both parties are in court and can hear what documentation the Court is requesting (with a copy sent to the other side). But improper use of email as explained above will not be allowed and may result in the privilege being discontinued. Accordingly, as there is no evidence presented before this Court that the responses served were in substantial compliance, Plaintiff Yutkovskys request to compel responses to special interrogatories Set One is GRANTED. The Court also GRANTS Plaintiffs request to deem that Defendant Simakovskis objections are waived, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.290 subdivision (a). Sanctions If a motion to compel a response to interrogatories is granted and the moving party properly asks for monetary sanctions, the court shall impose a monetary sanction against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes the motion unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circ*mstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (CCP § 2023.290(c).) Even after a party provides discovery responses, a party may keep its motion on calendar and the court has authority to grant such sanctions, even if it denies the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in whole or in part. (Sinaiko, supra, at p. 409.) Yutkovsky requests sanctions in the total amount of $2,787.95 based upon counsels rate of $450.00/hour for (1) 2.0 hours to prepare the motion; (2) 2.5 hours to review any opposition and prepare a reply; (3) $61.65 reservation fee; (4) $26.30 in filing fees; and (4) $675.00 appearance fee. (Cohen Decl. ¶ 16.) Yutkovsky requests 2.5 hours to review any opposition and file a reply. However, there was no opposition, and thus no need to reply. Accordingly, Plaintiff Yutkovskys request for sanctions against Defendant Simakovski is GRANTED in the reduced total amount of $1,662.95. Sanctions are payable within 30 days of service of this order. Motion to Compel Discovery Responses, Form Interrogatories The Court adopts the discussion above from the Motion to Compel Discovery Responses, Special Interrogatories to this Motion to Compel Discovery Responses, Form Interrogatories. As there is no evidence presented before this Court that the responses served were in substantial compliance, Plaintiff Yutkovskys request to compel responses to form interrogatories Set One is GRANTED. The Court also GRANTS Plaintiffs request to deem that Defendant Simakovskis objections are waived, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.290 subdivision (a). Sanctions Yutkovsky requests sanctions in the total amount of $1,887.95 based upon counsels rate of $450.00/hour for (1) 1.5 hours to prepare the motion; (2) 2.5 hours to review any opposition and prepare a reply; (3) $61.65 reservation fee; and (4) $26.30 in filing fees. (Cohen Decl. ¶ 16.) Yutkovsky requests 2.5 hours to review any opposition and file a reply. However, there was no opposition, and thus no need to reply. Accordingly, Plaintiff Yutkovskys request for sanctions against Defendant Simakovski is GRANTED in the reduced total amount of $762.95. Sanctions are payable within 30 days of service of this order. Conclusion The Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (Special Interrogatories) [RES ID:8241] is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve fully compliant responses without objections, as well as the responsive documents, within 30 days. The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,662.95. The Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (Form Interrogatories) [RES ID:8986] is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve fully compliant responses without objections, as well as the responsive documents, within 30 days. The request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $762.95. Sanctions are payable within 30 days of electronic service of this order.

Ruling

THE VILLAGES OF AVALON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION vs MENDOZA

Aug 26, 2024 |Frank Anthony Moschetti |CVMV2104527

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OFTHE VILLAGES OF AVALONDEFAULT, VACATE THE JUDGMENT,CVMV2104527 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VSRECALL AND QUASH THE WRIT OFMENDOZAEXECUTIONTentative Ruling: No tentative at this time, due to lack of notice as required pursuant toLocal Rule 3316.

Ruling

MJ GLOBAL ENTERPRISE, INC. VS EVERYTABLE, PBC

Aug 27, 2024 |24NWCV00798

Case Number: 24NWCV00798 Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 Dept: C MJ Global Enterprise, Inc. vs Everytable, PBC Case No.: 24NWCV00798 Hearing Date: August 27, 2024 @ 9:30 a.m. #5 Tentative Ruling Defendant Everytable, PBCs Demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. Plaintiff MJ Global Enterprise, Inc.s Motions to Compel Further Response to Request for Admissions (Set One) and Form Interrogatories (Set One) are MOOT. Defendant to give notice. Background This is an unlawful detainer action. Plaintiff MJ Global Enterprise, Inc. (MJ Global) filed suit against Defendant Everytable, PBC (Everytable) alleging failure to pay rent in the amount of $239,287.00. There are three other actions pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court involving the same parties: In LASC Case No. 24NWCV01115, Sonterra Capital, the fee owner of the real property located at 3305 East Vernon A venue, Vernon, CA 90058 ("Subject Property"), filed an unlawful detainer action against its lessee and sublandlord, MJ Global, and its sublessees Everytable and Pitman Enterprises USA Inc. ("Pitman") for possession of the Subject Property. In LASC Case No. 24STCP02038, Apex Funding Source, LLP applies for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State (New York) Judgment against MJ Global and Hyung Do Min. In LASC Case No. 24STCV02343, Everytable filed an interpleader action after MJ Global and Apex Funding presented Everytable with competing demands for the rent at issue in this unlawful detainer case. The interpleader action names MJ Global and Apex Funding as claimants. On January 31, 2024, Everytable deposited with the Court the exact amount rent MJ Global claims is outstanding in this unlawful detainer action (i.e., $239,286.79). Requests For Judicial Notice The Court GRANTS Defendants requests for judicial notice, including the request to take judicial notice of the Minute Order entered on August 13, 2024 in Everytable, PBC v. MJ Global Enterprise, Inc., et al., LASC Case No. 24STCV02343 relating to Everytables Motion for Order Discharging Stakeholder Everytable and for Award of Attorneys Fees and Costs. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) The Court takes judicial notice only as to the existence, content, and authenticity of such documents; it does not take judicial notice of the truth of the factual matters asserted therein. (Dominguez v. Bonta (2022) 87 Cal. App. 5th 389, 400.) On its own motion, the Court takes judicial notice of the Minute Order entered on August 13, 2024 in Everytable, PBC v. MJ Global Enterprise, Inc., et al., LASC Case No. 24STCV02343 relating to MJ Globals demurrer to the Everytables Complaint in Interpleader. Legal Standard A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.30, 430.70.) At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) A demurrer does not, however, admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the pleading, or the construction of instruments pleaded, or facts impossible in law. (S. Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732 (internal citations omitted).) Discussion Any person, firm, corporation, association or other entity against whom double or multiple claims are made, or may be made, by two or more persons which are such that they may give rise to double or multiple liability, may bring an action against the claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386(b).) The Court has taken judicial notice of the Minute Order dated August 13, 2024 in the interpleader action. The Minute Order states that Plaintiff Everytable, PBC is discharged from liability and dismissed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 386.5 regarding the funds deposited with the Clerk of the Court in the amount of $387,285 in connection with this action. (See LASC Case No. 24STCV02343, 8-13-24 Minute Order.) These funds consist of $239,286.79 deposited with the Court on or about January 30, 2024 and $147,988.21 deposited with the Court on or about March 1, 2024. In the interpleader action, the court found that the Complaint alleges sufficient facts showing a reasonable probability of double vexation, or a valid threat of double vexation. The Court finds the Complaint sufficiently alleges that Defendants make conflicting, adverse claims to the same thing, that is, Plaintiffs rent payments, and that Plaintiff cannot safely determine which claim is right and lawful. (LASC Case No. 24STCV02343, 8-13-24 Minute Order.) The court further found that Plaintiff does not have an interest in the Interplead Funds that were deposited, and therefore is sufficiently disinterested and neutral under Code of Civil Procedure sections 386 and 386.5. (Ibid.) When the ground of demurrer is based on a matter of which the court may take judicial notice pursuant to Section 452 or 453 of the Evidence Code, such matter shall be specified in the demurrer, or in the supporting points and authorities for the purpose of invoking such notice, except as the court may otherwise permit. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.70.) Based upon judicial notice of the August 13, 2024 minute order in Case No. 24STCV02343, Defendant has demonstrated that it has deposited with the Court the full amount of rent due, and that it should be discharged from liability in the instant unlawful detainer action. [T]he basic elements of unlawful detainer for nonpayment of rent contained in CCP §1161(2) are: (1) the tenant is in possession of the premises; (2) that possession is without permission; (3) the tenant is in default for nonpayment of rent; (4) the tenant has been properly served with a written three-day notice; and (5) the default continues after the three-day notice period has elapsed. (Kruger v. Reyes (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10, 16.) Under the circ*mstances here, the Court finds there is no defaulted payment. In its Supplemental Opposition filed on August 23, 2024, MJ Global argues that the interpleader court, in its August 13, 2024 ruling on Everytables Motion to be Discharged, did not litigate the breach of lease or any other matter between the parties. While that is correct, the courts ruling should not be interpreted to mean that the court will not determine the respective rights of the remaining parties to the deposited funds. To provide context, this Court notes the following portion of the August 13, 2024 ruling regarding MJ Globals demurrer: Here, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that it not [sic] required to litigate, at this stage of the action and for purposes of a demurrer, the legal dispute between Defendant MJ Global and Defendant Apex with respect to whether the rent payments must be paid to Defendant Apex pursuant to either the letter or the Judgment, or to Defendant MJ Global pursuant to the lease agreements. (Minute Order, 8/13/24, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 24STCV02343, italics added.) Now that Everytable has demonstrated its right to interplead the funds, Defendants are now compelled to litigate their respective claims to those funds. (CCP § 386(b).) That is done in the interpleader court, not in this court. Accordingly, Defendants Demurrer is SUSTAINED. For the Court to grant leave to amend, Plaintiff must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 335, 349, quotations omitted.) Because Everytable has deposited the full amount of rent due with the Court and Everytable has been discharged from the interpleader action, the Court does not find that leave to amend would allow MJ Global to sufficiently allege an unlawful detainer action. Accordingly, leave to amend is DENIED. MJ Globals Motions to Compel Further Responses Because the Court has sustained the Demurrer without leave to amend, MJ Globals motions to compel further discovery responses are MOOT.

Ruling

Sol Selection, LLC vs. All persons unknown

Aug 27, 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

EASTBRICK LLC Vs. TYSON BROOKS.et al

Jan 10, 2024 |BEDINGHAUS, SUSAN |RESIDENTIAL EVICTION DAMAGES $0 - $2,500 |RESIDENTIAL EVICTION DAMAGES $0 - $2,500 |24-000278-CO

Document

PACIFICA FOREST LAKES LLC Vs. TIFFANY BYRD

Jan 16, 2024 |CARASSAS, JOHN |RESIDENTIAL EVICTION POSSESSION ONLY (NON-MONETARY) |RESIDENTIAL EVICTION POSSESSION ONLY (NON-MONETARY) |24-000464-CO

Document

MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS LTD Vs. ALICIA DIAZ GREEN

Jan 11, 2024 |CARASSAS, JOHN |RESIDENTIAL EVICTION POSSESSION ONLY (NON-MONETARY) |RESIDENTIAL EVICTION POSSESSION ONLY (NON-MONETARY) |24-000304-CO

Document

ARENA NG LLC Vs. JANAY L WALKER

Jan 11, 2024 |BEDINGHAUS, SUSAN |RESIDENTIAL EVICTION POSSESSION ONLY (NON-MONETARY) |RESIDENTIAL EVICTION POSSESSION ONLY (NON-MONETARY) |24-000322-CO

Document

US BANK TRUST COMPANY NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Vs. GWEN THOMAS.et al

May 15, 2024 |RAMSBERGER, THOMAS M |REAL PROP/MTGE FRCL HOMESTEAD RES3 $250,000 OR MORE |REAL PROP/MTGE FRCL HOMESTEAD RES3 $250,000 OR MORE |24-002157-CI

Document

PARKWOOD SQUARE APARTMENTS ASSOCIATION B INC Vs. ESTATE OF MARY MORELLI. et al

Jan 16, 2024 |CARASSAS, JOHN |REAL PROP - MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE - COUNTY UP TO $15,000 |REAL PROP - MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE - COUNTY UP TO $15,000 |24-000456-CO

Document

U S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Vs. MEAGAN B BURD.et al

May 15, 2024 |RAMSBERGER, THOMAS M |REAL PROP/MTGE FRCL NON-HOMESTEAD RES2 $50,001 - $249,999 |REAL PROP/MTGE FRCL NON-HOMESTEAD RES2 $50,001 - $249,999 |24-002154-CI

Document

ROBERT R BURKE, et al Vs. RAINTREE VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM INC

May 02, 2024 |RAMSBERGER, THOMAS M |CONDOMINIUM - CIRCUIT |CONDOMINIUM - CIRCUIT |24-001939-CI