Related Contentin Allen County
Case
Vincent Vides v. Leticia Zamora, All Other Occupants
Aug 21, 2024 |EV - Evictions (Small Claims Docket) |EV - Evictions (Small Claims Docket) |02D01-2408-EV-002939
Case
IOM Health System LP v. Benito Perez
Aug 21, 2024 |SC - Small Claims |SC - Small Claims |02D09-2408-SC-007577
Case
Franklin Law v. Starlene Eley
Aug 22, 2024 |SC - Small Claims |SC - Small Claims |02D01-2408-SC-007621
Case
City of Fort Wayne Neighborhood Code Compliance v. Luis G Sanchez
Aug 23, 2024 |SC - Small Claims |SC - Small Claims |02D02-2408-SC-007651
Case
In Re: the Marriage of Kyle A Glass and Britta Gene Eberly Glass
Aug 21, 2024 |Sherry A. Hartzler |DC - Domestic Relations with Children |DC - Domestic Relations with Children |02D08-2408-DC-000984
Case
My BCHP Owner II LLC v. Breck Queary, Any and All Occupants
Aug 19, 2024 |EV - Evictions (Small Claims Docket) |EV - Evictions (Small Claims Docket) |02D09-2408-EV-002855
Case
Citibank, N.A. v. Chelsea Gomez
Aug 22, 2024 |SC - Small Claims |SC - Small Claims |02D09-2408-SC-007610
Case
Steve Burns v. Quintina Page
Aug 19, 2024 |EV - Evictions (Small Claims Docket) |EV - Evictions (Small Claims Docket) |02D02-2408-EV-002831
Case
In Re: the Estate of Wiley Lee Duncan, Sr.
Aug 21, 2024 |EU - Estate, Unsupervised |EU - Estate, Unsupervised |02D02-2408-EU-000433
Ruling
CITIBANK, N.A. VS. JOANN EDSON
Aug 22, 2024 |CGC23609505
Matter on the Discovery Calendar for Thursday, Aug-22-2024, Line 7, [PART TWO OF TWO] DEFENDANT JOANN EDSON'S MOTION TO DEEM FACTS AS ADMITTED; AND REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES OF $300.00 (CRC 3.1702, CCP 2033.010 AND 2033.280(B). (ADDED FOR POSTING OF TENTATIVE RULING) Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to psw@hassard.com with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must e-mail it to the Judge Pro Tem. The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(525/JPT)
Ruling
Aspire General Insurance Company vs. Allison
Aug 22, 2024 |22CVG-00899
ASPIRE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. ALLISONCase Number: 22CVG-00899This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of the case. The Court notes that Plaintiff has still not fileda Proof of Service of Summons. Monetary sanctions have already been imposed. The Court will issue an Orderto Show Cause Re: Dismissal for failure to timely serve and failure to timely prosecute. Hearing on the Order toShow Cause will be on Monday, November 4, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 63. The clerk is directed toprepare 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 ontoday’s calendar.
Ruling
Discover Bank vs. Hagler-Mabry
Aug 20, 2024 |24CVG-00462
DISCOVER BANK VS. HAGLER-MABRYCase Number: 24CVG-00462Tentative Ruling on Motion to Quash Service of Summons: Defendant Deborah Hagler-Mabrymoves to quash service of summons pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10 on thegrounds of improper service. Defendant argues that personal service was improper, because theprocess 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 rebuttablepresumption 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 waspersonally served on June 13, 2024. Defendant has not offered any admissible evidence to rebutthe presumption.Merits: “When a defendant challenges the court's personal jurisdiction on the ground of improperservice of process the burden is on the plaintiff to prove … the facts requisite to an effectiveservice.” Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 CA4th 403, 413, (internal quotes omitted); seeLebel v. Mai (2012) 210 CA4th 1154, 1163. Delivering copies of the summons and complaint todefendant personally constitutes “personal service” of summons. CCP § 415.10. As long as theprocess server identifies himself or herself and tells the reluctant defendant that he or she is beingserved with process and leaves the papers as close as possible to the defendant, service is validnotwithstanding 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 registeredpursuant to Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 22350) of Division 8 of the Business andProfessions Code upon process or notice establishes a presumption, affecting the burden ofproducing evidence, of the facts stated in the return.Here, Plaintiff has provided a verified Proof of Service from a registered process server thatestablishes personal service of Defendant. The Summons and Complaint were delivered toDefendant at her home address on June 13, 2024. Defendant confirmed her identity to the processserver by nodding when named. Defendant tried to refuse service by closing the door. Thedocuments were left and seen by the Defendant. This constitutes valid personal service. Defendanthas failed to offer any admissible evidence to rebut the presumption of the facts stated in theprocess server’s return as required by Evidence Code section 647. Service is valid and the Motionto Quash is DENIED. No proposed order has been lodged as required by Local Rule 5.17(D).Defendant shall prepare the order.
Ruling
BANK OF AMERICA N.A. vs SANTOS
Aug 25, 2024 |CVPS2402470
BANK OF AMERICA N.A. vs Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings byCVPS2402470SANTOS BANK OF AMERICA N.A.Tentative Ruling: Granted.No opposition filed.Review of answer and amended answer does not dispute Plaintiff’s complaint.Plaintiff to file proposed judgment within 5 days of this order becoming final.Plaintiff to provide notice pursuant to CCP 1019.5.
Ruling
OneMain Financial Group, LLC vs. Escalante
Aug 20, 2024 |23CVG-00811
ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC VS. ESCALANTECase Number: 23CVG-00811Tentative Ruling on Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted: The present motionis unopposed. Plaintiff OneMain Financial Group, LLC as servicer for Wilmington Trust N.A., asIssuer Loan Trustee, seeks an order deeming admitted the truth of matters specified in Plaintiff’sRequests for Admissions, Set One, which were served on Defendant Marissa Escalante by mail onFebruary 12, 2024.Merits of Motion: When a party fails to respond to a request for admission, the requesting partymay move for an order deeming the genuineness of documents and the truth of matters specifiedin the requests admitted. CCP § 2033.280(b). Failure to respond also waives any objections to thediscovery propounded. CCP § 2033.280(a). Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motionto compel responses when no responses have been provided does not require the propoundingparty to demonstrate good cause or that it satisfied a meet-and-confer requirement. SinaikoHealthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390.Here, Plaintiff’s moving papers sufficiently demonstrate that the discovery was served by mail andDefendant has failed to respond within the required time frame. The request to deem the mattersadmitted is granted.Monetary sanctions are mandatory per CCP 2033.280(c); however, Plaintiff did not seek monetarysanctions and provided no evidence regarding attorney’s fees or other costs associated withbringing the motion. Sanctions should only be imposed for “reasonable” expenses. CCP §2023.030. The Court does not have information upon which to make a finding that any amount ofsanctions were for reasonable expenses and will not impose sanctions. The motion is GRANTED.A proposed order was lodged with the Court and will be executed.
Ruling
ROCK CREEK CAPITAL, LLC VS PAMELA WITRAGO, ET AL.
Aug 26, 2024 |22PSCV02056
Case Number: 22PSCV02056 Hearing Date: August 26, 2024 Dept: 6 Plaintiff Rock Creek Capital, LLCs Request for Entry of Default Judgment Defendants: Jesus E Espinoza and Pamela Witrago TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiffs request for entry of default judgment is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $107,273.46. Plaintiff shall submit a new Proposed Judgment with the reduce amount prior to the August 26, 2024 hearing. BACKGROUND This is a collection case. Plaintiff Rock Creek Capital, LLC (Plaintiff) is a debt buyer and acquired a series of education loans from original creditor Sallie Mae. On November 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants Jesus E Espinoza, Pamela Witrago (Defendants), and Does 1 through 15, alleging one cause of action for breach of contract. Default was entered against Defendants on September 27, 2023. Following a denial of Plaintiffs prior default judgment package, Plaintiff resubmitted a default judgment package on November 17, 2023. Following the denial of that default judgment package, Plaintiff resubmitted the default judgment package on May 28, 2024. LEGAL STANDARD Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a default judgment after a party has failed to timely respond or appear. (Code Civ. Proc., § 585.) A party seeking judgment on the default by the court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursem*nts; (5) declaration of nonmilitary status; (6) a proposed form of judgment; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800.) ANALYSIS Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Defendants in the total amount of $112,129.36, including $112,129.36 in principal damages, $0.00 in prejudgment interest, $0.00 in attorney fees, and $0.00 in costs. However, Plaintiff still has not adequately provided a calculation for the interest it seeks. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(3).) It is not enough for Plaintiff to just state the lump sum calculation; Plaintiff needs to show how that lump sum was determined. (See Id.; Welch Decl., ¶ 6.) The evidence submitted is unclear as to how Plaintiff determined the amount of interest sought. On the one hand, Plaintiff provides a statement of account dated September 1, 2021, showing an interest balance of $28,050.81, and even this amount is not fully explained, as it does not provide the beginning date to the end date for the total number of days multiplied by the per diem rate. (Welch Decl., Ex. E, p. 34 of pdf.) On the other hand, that same document later shows only $9,975.39 in unpaid interest. (Welch Decl., Ex. E, p. 41 of pdf.) Additionally, since this loan agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Utah, Utah law governs the prejudgment interest calculation, so it is unclear if the 12.375% interest rate is permissible under Utah law. (Welch Decl., Ex. A, pp. 7 and 11 of pdf; Airs Aromatics, LLC v. CBL Data Recovery Technologies, Inc. (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1009, 1014 [contract containing New York choice-of-law clause held to govern the plaintiffs recovery of prejudgment interest].) Given that this is Plaintiffs third default judgment request and Plaintiff still has not provided a calculation for the interest sought, the Court will deduct $4,855.90 from the total judgment instead of denying without prejudice and having Plaintiff resubmit the default judgment package. Based on the September 1, 2021 statement, the total days from June 9, 2019 to September 1, 2021 is 815 days. Thus, the Court calculates the interest at $23,294.90 (815 x $28.46 daily interest). The Court otherwise finds Plaintiffs default judgment package is in order and will award Plaintiff default judgment in the reduced amount of $107,273.46, i.e., $83,928.56 for the principal sum, plus $23,194.90 accrued interest, plus the $150.00 late fee at the time of charge-off. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs request for entry of default judgment is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $107,273.46. Plaintiff shall submit a new Proposed Judgment with the reduce amount prior to the August 26, 2024 hearing.
Ruling
Aspire General Insurance Company vs. Allison
Aug 21, 2024 |22CVG-00899
ASPIRE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS. ALLISONCase Number: 22CVG-00899This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of the case. The Court notes that Plaintiff has still not fileda Proof of Service of Summons. Monetary sanctions have already been imposed. The Court will issue an Orderto Show Cause Re: Dismissal for failure to timely serve and failure to timely prosecute. Hearing on the Order toShow Cause will be on Monday, November 4, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 63. The clerk is directed toprepare 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 ontoday’s calendar.
Ruling
OneMain Financial Group, LLC vs. Escalante
Aug 21, 2024 |23CVG-00811
ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC VS. ESCALANTECase Number: 23CVG-00811Tentative Ruling on Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted: The present motionis unopposed. Plaintiff OneMain Financial Group, LLC as servicer for Wilmington Trust N.A., asIssuer Loan Trustee, seeks an order deeming admitted the truth of matters specified in Plaintiff’sRequests for Admissions, Set One, which were served on Defendant Marissa Escalante by mail onFebruary 12, 2024.Merits of Motion: When a party fails to respond to a request for admission, the requesting partymay move for an order deeming the genuineness of documents and the truth of matters specifiedin the requests admitted. CCP § 2033.280(b). Failure to respond also waives any objections to thediscovery propounded. CCP § 2033.280(a). Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motionto compel responses when no responses have been provided does not require the propoundingparty to demonstrate good cause or that it satisfied a meet-and-confer requirement. SinaikoHealthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390.Here, Plaintiff’s moving papers sufficiently demonstrate that the discovery was served by mail andDefendant has failed to respond within the required time frame. The request to deem the mattersadmitted is granted.Monetary sanctions are mandatory per CCP 2033.280(c); however, Plaintiff did not seek monetarysanctions and provided no evidence regarding attorney’s fees or other costs associated withbringing the motion. Sanctions should only be imposed for “reasonable” expenses. CCP §2023.030. The Court does not have information upon which to make a finding that any amount ofsanctions were for reasonable expenses and will not impose sanctions. The motion is GRANTED.A proposed order was lodged with the Court and will be executed.
Document
Mariner Finance LLC v. Jon Black
Aug 16, 2024 |CC - Civil Collection |CC - Civil Collection |02D03-2408-CC-003069
Document
Brenda Picetti, Raymond Thoza v. Debra M Modeiros, George C Thoza, Julie Monnieret al
Aug 20, 2024 |PL - Civil Plenary |PL - Civil Plenary |02D03-2408-PL-000399
Document
Gabrielle Vazquez v. Aaron Gerber
Aug 22, 2024 |CT - Civil Tort |CT - Civil Tort |02D09-2408-CT-000550
Document
Eagle Finance Company v. Hilario Rios
Aug 20, 2024 |CC - Civil Collection |CC - Civil Collection |02D03-2408-CC-003097
Document
Midland Credit Management INC v. Bethany Doremus
Aug 19, 2024 |CC - Civil Collection |CC - Civil Collection |02D03-2408-CC-003094
Document
Theresa R Brown v. Taylor Rider
Aug 19, 2024 |Craig J. Bobay |CT - Civil Tort |CT - Civil Tort |02D02-2408-CT-000546
Document
Jefferson Capital Systems LLC v. Sara Pio
Aug 16, 2024 |CC - Civil Collection |CC - Civil Collection |02D02-2408-CC-003064
Document
Discover Bank v. Shonda R Skipper
Aug 20, 2024 |CC - Civil Collection |CC - Civil Collection |02D01-2408-CC-003118
