Preview
eee 1066" i HUNT & HENRIQUES = Michael S. Hunt #99804 Janalie Henriques #111589 NY 151 Bernal Road, Ste#8 San Jose, CA 95119 WY Telephone (408) 362-2270 Hh Attorneys for Plaintiff mH Dn HN SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA fm ALLEN E. BROUSSARD JUSTICE CENTER oo NCO PORTFOLIO FUNDING, INC., Case No. 1-014026 LIMITED CIVIL Plaintiff, S| DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF SF IN LIEU OF PERSONAL TESTIMONY Vv. AT TRIAL (CCP § 98) SY ELTYNA M. MCCREE, et al., FP Defendants. / Se I, the undersigned, am a designated officer of Plaintiff NCO Ke PORTFOLIO FUNDING, INC. (hereafter Plaintiff) and a duly | authorized custodian of business books and records of Plaintiff. Fe If called to testify in this matter, I could and would competently KK testify as follows: YN 1. I am thoroughly familiar with the manner in which Plaintiff HV maintains its business records for outstanding credit accounts. ND Plaintiff's records are kept in the ordinary course of business by po employees of Plaintiff who are required to accurately record any no and all business transaction or event on the computer system maintained by Plaintiff. All such entries are made at or near the 1 Declaration of Plaintiff in Lieu of Personal Testimony at Trial ! Y s @ © ~ ~ no time of the transaction or event. I have personally reviewed = Plaintiff's records as they relate to the credit account opened by NY Plaintiff's predecessor in interest in the name of ELTYNAM. MCCREE WY (hereafter Defendant) and make this declaration based on that BP review. OH 2. The computerized records maintained by Plaintiff are the Dn principal records for sums due and owing to Plaintiff for any and NI all transactions resulting from the use of a credit account Oa established by Plaintiff's predecessor in interest for a customer. o The records reflect all debits and credits in connection with the use of the credit account, with the entries made in the regular course of business conducted by Plaintiff, with a written statement of the credit account provided to the credit account holder on a monthly basis. Plaintiff purchased the account that is the subject of this lawsuit and is now the owner of said account. 3. By executing the credit account application the applicant agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions set forth in the application and account agreement. Plaintiff issued credit to Defendant Eltyna M. McCree. The original and microfilm copy of the application is now unavailable but a true and correct copy of the NO account agreement is attached hereto and incorporated herein as De Exhibit "A". 4. AT & T Universal Mastercard executed a master sales agreement with NCO PORTFOLIO FUNDING, INC. transferring all rights and interest to specified delinquent AT&T Universal Mastercard accounts. On or about February 10, 1998 Plaintiff acquired the 2 Declaration of Plaintiff in Lieu of Personal Testimony at Trial 4 @ © i account, which is the subject of this action, from AT&T Universal N= Mastercard. 5. The sale of the account from Plaintiff's predecessor, AT&T WY Universal Mastercard, to Plaintiff is set forth in a purchase SF agreement which contains proprietary information. Because of the Hh ADBOn content of the agreement, it is not attached. 6. For each account transferred, Plaintiff's predecessor NN provided Plaintiff with, among other information, the original wo account number and the balance on each account as of the date of o transfer. Said information was placed into Plaintiff's computer EHTS system. 7. At the time of transfer or subsequent thereto, Plaintiff's predecessor in interest, pursuant to the purchase agreement, provided to Plaintiff from predecessor's business records copies of aaeRe relevant account documents. Plaintiff has maintained and incorporated said account documents in Defendant's account file. For this account Plaintiff's predecessor in interest provided Ceri copies of the account statements from March 7, 1997 through February 6, 1998, the last showing the balance transferred to NCO PORTFOLIO FUNDING, INC. of $6.282.54 (attached hereto collectively S&S [ and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B"). PseepbBRPRPBBR 8. Plaintiff has elected to waive its contract cause of action and proceed on the account stated. I an authorized by NCO WN Portfolio Funding, Inc. to waive the contract rate of interest of NO 23.9 percent per annum and the claim for attorney's fees and hereby WN do so. Interest has continued to accrue at the legal rate of NHN 3 Declaration of Plaintiff in Lieu of Personal Testimony at Trial @ @ i interest of 10.0 percent per annum. 9. Defendant ceased making the required payments on the NY account pursuant to the account agreement. Accordingly, Plaintiff WH accelerated the remaining balance and brought suit for the eR principal balance of $6,282.54 which is now due and owing together UH with interest thereon at the legal rate of 10.0 percent per annum DB from February 6, 1998, to the date of entry of judgment. Despite NY Plaintiff's efforts to collect, no other part of this sum has been Oo paid by Defendant. 0 10. After notification of the transfer prior to filing the S lawsuit, Defendant did not deny the existence of the account or BeeRRRBBRRS AKREARBR|ST dispute the balance of the account. At the time Plaintiff purchased the account, Plaintiff is informed and believes that there were not unresolved disputes pertaining to the Defendant's account. 11. Plaintiff cannot utilize Small Claims Court due to the volume of delinquent credit accounts that Plaintiff pursues and the fact that judgments in Small Claims Court require a_ court appearance. In order to file actions in Small Claims court, CE Plaintiff would need to hire additional employees whose sole a function would need to be the representation of Plaintiff in the LO Small Claims actions. Actions to recover the delinquent credit balance are filed in the jurisdiction where the Defendant resides. Plaintiff's employees would need to travel throughout the state which would cause them to be out of the office on a regular basis and therefore unable to perform other job duties. CCP §116.540(b) states that a corporation may appear only through an employee who 4 Declaration of Plaintiff in Lieu of Personal Testimony at Trial } oo = @ i is employed for purposes other than solely representing the & corporation in Small Claims Court. Further, CCP §116.231 prevents NY a party from filing more than two suits per year, in California, WY where the amount in controversy per claim exceeds $2,500.00. Based ff on the foregoing, proceeding in Small Claims is not possible. A 12. Plaintiff has retained legal counsel to file suit; prior ND to filing suit, Defendant was sent written notification of the intended legal action and that said legal action could result ina Oo judgment against Defendant which could include costs of suit and Oo reasonable attorney's fees. 13. Plaintiff requests that Exhibits "A" through "B" be _ accepted in lieu of the original documents. =| 14. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court FF enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff NCO PORTFOLIO FUNDING, INC. FPF and against Defendant ELTYNA M. MCCREE in the principal sum of §—§ $6,282.54 with interest thereon at the legal rate of 10.0 percent —|§ per annum from February 6, 1998 to date of entry of judgment | //1 FF /// =| //f HNO /tf NO /// NHN /f/ NO HTf /Tf Mf N 5 Declaration of Plaintiffin Lieu of Personal Testimony at Trial /t/ together with court costs of $129.00. NY /t/ YD /T1 PP /// A M11 NN MH . I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of fo California that the foregoing declaration is true and correct. o Executed in Washington D.C m the date t forth below. sé eet Dated: JUL 29 m2 QDaakzkauper Tracy Eccl Designated Agent mm NCO PORTFOLIO FUNDING, INC. Pursuant C.C.P. §98, this affiant is available for service of process: c/o Hunt & Henriques, 151 Bernal Road, Suite 8, San Jose, CA 95119, for the twenty days immediately prior to trial. Ce Dw BP HN BSB NO HN DN RR BO DP Bee iw) 6 Declaration of Plaintiff in Lieu of Personal Testimony at Trial © | ® i /// = together with court costs of $129.00. NY ‘Tl W /// BP /Tf nA /// DBD Mf NI I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of wo California that the foregoing declaration is true and correct. o Executed in Washington D.C., on the date set forth below. S ee Dated: JUL 29 2002 CS HEHE ee Tracy Eccles Designated Agent NCO PORTFOLIO FUNDING, INC. ee Pursuant C.c.P. §98, this affiant is available for service DRADER of process: c/o Hunt & Henriques, 151 Bernal Road, Suite 8, San Jose, CA 95119, for the twenty days immediately prior to trial. ee Ge BSB | RBE RP PRRR i) 6 Declaration of Plaintiff in Lieu of Personal Testimony at Trial EX.7 Bs You continue will to be for liable théentirebalanceof your ATST Universal Card Credit Agreement _. ' ATel Universal Card Account,even co-applicant if your by is ordered pay to a court all ort oe payus. If courtordersyour to co-applicant This Agreement the contting termswhich povern your portionofyour Accountbakince,you willremain to liable AIST Universal and Carel Account,Pleasereadthisdocu- usif yourco-upplicant to fails pay asordered bythecourt, papers. CARDMEMBER AGREEMENT ment and keep your it with otherimportant und yourAccount will status continue tobe reportedtothe 1.Definitions. In Agreement, this theword “Card” means bureau under yourname. credit a Card single ortwo ormore Cards we haveissuedto you From timeto timewe may tellyouabout new productsand ‘TheAIST UniversalCard isacreditcard and an under thisAgreement.The words “you,” and “your,” serviceswe are to oflering you and othercardmembers. If “yours”mean each who individual appliesforaCard. The r ) AI&T Calling Card. This document provides you you would not prefer toreceivethis either information by words “we,” or “our,” “us”mean the issuer AT&T of the AT&T Universal Card Credit Agreement telephoneormail orboth,just us let know by our calling with the UniversalCard.The word“Account” means theAT&T Customer toll-free Servicenumber, | 800423-4343. and the AT&T Calling Card Terms and Conditions. UniversalCardAccount forwhichyou were issueda Card imprintedwith yourAccount Number. The words 3.Accepting This Agreement. This Agreement willbe User" ~ Authorized mean anyperson towhom you giveper when eflvetive you oran AuthorizedUser usesthe Cardor to inission useyourAccount,The words“TransactionDate” theAccount,or to fail if you cutyourCard inhalfand return Contents mean thedatethegoods orserviceswere purchased orthe ito uswithin30 daysalter of receipt thisAgreement, datethe Cash Advancewas made, The words "Posting _| ATST Universal Card Date” mean thedatethatthecharge wasdebited and or How to use your credit line. . Credit Agreement... 0. creditedtoyour Account. 4.Your Credit Line,You may notuse your Accountinany 2.Your Responsibilityforthe Account, You urerespon- would causeyou togo overyour credit We line. How to.use your creditline oo... oi whether is it way that sible all for amounts owed on yourAccount, may refusetoauthorizeoracceptiny on transaction your used hy youor hyan AuthorizedUser,and you agreeto toexceed yourcreditfine, Lost cards and other concerns 2... . .G Account which wouldctuse you pay suchamounts accordingtotheterms of this your not obligation tyexceed the line credit foryour this 6. Agreement. [fthis joint is a Account,each together of you, credit you line, agree aying yourbill 2.0... Account.If youowe more thanyour and amounts for all is responsible individually, owed, even immediately upon our and request we topay theexcess charges are determined . .8 ° iftheAccount by is used onlyone of you.Inordertocancel How finance may chargeyou an fee, averlimit asdescribed 16 in Section permission ofanAuthorizedUser touse yourAINE Agreement, andor suspend your Accountprivileges olthis Your billingrights and UniversalGardAccount,you ust notifyusinwritingand your Accountas describedinSection24 of this oreancel our responsibilities ©... 6... TT you must destroyanyCard inthepossessionof the Agreement, We may change yourcreditfineatanytime and Authorized You User. willcontinuetobe until liable paid you ofthe new line. willnotily Account feesexplained 6.2... 12 up for Purchases all and Cash Advances made by an Cash Advances. You cinuse your and User, allother Account resulting feesand §.Purchases and Authorized or household theCard.The Card Accountand your Card personal, for Rimily, Our rightsand what charges, we until receiveyourletterand purposes Your only, Card einbe used topurchuseor lease they meantoyou. see TS is our I'we property, ask,youmust cutthe Cardin halfand soonas you goods snd from services participating You establishments, returnittous.Youmust signeach Cardas mityalsouse theCard toobtaina foanfromyour Account, AIST CallingCard receivei, any it to tha: institution acceptstheCard for hy presenting ‘Terms and Conditions ......... «16 ttt purpose,orto mitkea withdrovalof cashatin 4 vee > we available, may be unable toauthorizecredit thatwe pay be will added havecredit date).Any ConvenienceCheck due trinsaction to operational or difficulties machine teller (ATM). Both oftheseGainsactions AT&T?Universal foraparticular ‘utonratedd toyour ACCOUNTS a CashAdvance,An Transactionsmade above acertaindollaramount as treated “CashAdvances” on yourAccount,We ny cannot be usedto mike pity- at mistakes. are onyour Card Convenience Check require before authorization thetransactionis the limit amotintof CashAdvances youmay mike Card Account.NeitherAT&T nvay than a ment on anyATRT Universal The number of you transactions make inone Any Purchaseor Cash Advance Cather the of issuer theAT&T approved. Account. UniversalCardServicesCorp.nor since limited we may the limit number of Check asdescribedin 7) Suction whichis for anyConvenience daymay be Convenience Card Universitt shallhaveany liability may be These given. are restrictions currencywillhe convertedto which authorizitions made by you inaforeign returnedinexcessofyour fine. credit we GANNO! explainthe or International VISA Cheek(s) retsons. forsecurity Asalresull, US, by dollars MasterCard either system works, Neither we Purchasesand Cush Advtoces of details how ourauthorization To International, convert and other concerns any if liability MasterCard and International Lost cards norauragents willbe or responsible have forairinsaction given, is not Account if your use Intecnitional theirown currence StolenCards iyour Card or is lost or stolen, if suthorization trins- 1 ren: 8.Lost or or tuthorization
Related Contentin Alameda County
Case
IN RE: LIAM S. LAWLESS, A MINOR
Apr 03, 2024 |Family Law (Custody Order - Juvenile) |Family Law (Custody Order - Juvenile) |24FL070094
Case
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA vs RAMIREZ
Apr 03, 2024 |Family Law (Summons and Complaint Regardi...) |Family Law (Summons and Complaint Regardi...) |24FL070146
Case
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER, INC., A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT ...
Aug 05, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Other Complaint (non-tort/non...) |Civil Unlimited (Other Complaint (non-tort/non...) |24CV085888
Case
24CV085885
24CV085885
Case
24CV085919
24CV085919
Case
LENDMARK FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY...
Aug 05, 2024 |Tara M. Flanagan |Civil Limited (Other Promissory Note/Collect...) |Civil Limited (Other Promissory Note/Collect...) |24CV085955
Case
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA vs MANA
Apr 03, 2024 |Family Law (Summons and Complaint Regardi...) |Family Law (Summons and Complaint Regardi...) |24FL070265
Case
RAMIREZ vs GROSS
Apr 03, 2024 |Jason Anthony Clay |Family Law (Dissolution of Marriage/Domes...) |Family Law (Dissolution of Marriage/Domes...) |24FL070207
Case
24CV085996
24CV085996
Ruling
OCHOA vs 3M COMPANY, et al.
Aug 01, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Asbestos) |23CV047447
23CV047447: OCHOA vs 3M COMPANY, et al. 08/01/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Jeffrey Ochoa (Plaintiff) in Department 18Tentative Ruling - 07/29/2024 Patrick McKinneyThe Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Jeffrey Ochoa on 06/21/2024 isDenied.The Court’s 7/17/2024 Order on plaintiff Jeffrey Ochoa’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compeldefendant Kaiser Gypsum Company’s (“Defendant”) Further Responses to Form Interrogatories(“FROG”) continued the hearing in part as to FROG No. 15.1, seeking facts and identification ofwitnesses and documents regarding Defendant’s Answer’s General Denial and AffirmativeDefenses, so that the parties could present their respective Separate Statements in a form moreconducive to the Court’s review. The Court has reviewed the parties’ respective revised SeparateStatements and rules as follows.Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses to Form Rog No. 15.1 is DENIED.Plaintiff’s revised Separate Statement at pp. 3:16-9:11, although not clearly identified byPlaintiff or Defendant, appears to be Defendant’s response to FROG No. 15.1 as to Defendant’sAnswer’s General Denial. Although the Response is not properly broken down into subsections(a), (b) and (c), the Response appears to state facts supporting Defendant’s General Denial withcitations to specific documents that Defendant intends to present at trial in this action in supportof the stated facts. Although the Response does not specifically identify any living witnesses, thecited documents date between 1965 and 1973; and it is likely that Defendant will not be ablepresent any witnesses with personal knowledge of the underlying facts, particularly where theResponse states that Defendant’s former person most qualified George Kirk is “deceased.”Instead, the Court can infer that Defendant will have its Custodian of Records authenticate whatappear to be business records of Defendant. Defendant may also present expert witnesstestimony as to the underlying facts; and the identities of Defendant’s expert trial witnesses neednot be stated in response to FROG, because expert witness discovery is subject to separate anddiscreet statutory requirements.Wherefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a Further Response to FROG No.15.1 as to Defendant’s Answer’s General Denial.The Court further DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a Further Response to FROG No. 15.1as to any of Defendant’s thirty-eight (38) Affirmative Defenses on the grounds that Plaintiff’srevised Separate Statement is not full and complete such that the Court is not required to reviewany other documents. (See CRC Rule 3.1345(c).) Specifically, Plaintiff’s revised SeparateStatement does not state any of Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses or the substance thereof suchthat the Court could properly determine that Defendant’s Responses are inadequate and thatfurther responses should be Ordered. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 23CV047447: OCHOA vs 3M COMPANY, et al. 08/01/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Jeffrey Ochoa (Plaintiff) in Department 18Additionally, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a further Response to FROG No. 15.1 as toDefendant’s Affirmative Defenses Nos. 6, 11, 13, 18-20, 34 and 36-38 is inconsistent withPlaintiff’s pending Motion for Summary Adjudication (“MSA”) of these Affirmative Defenses,wherein Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s discovery responses are “factually devoid” and thusthe Court should find that Defendant does not have and cannot reasonably obtain evidence tosupport these ten Affirmative Defenses. If Plaintiff contends that Defendant does not have andcannot obtain evidence to support these ten affirmative Defenses, then an Order compellingDefendant’s further responses to them would serve no legitimate purpose and instead appears tobe intended to force Defendant to provide non-existent information instead of using that time toprepare for trial, a misuse of the discovery process. (See CCP § 2023.010(c).) Further, to theextent that Defendant has evidence to create triable issues of material fact in support of theseAffirmative Defenses, it is likely that Defendant will present such evidence, if it can, inOpposition to Plaintiff’s MSA.CONTESTING TENTATIVE ORDERSNotify the Court and all other parties no later than 4:00 pm the day before the scheduled hearingand identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps:1. Log into eCourt Public Portal - https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov2. Case Search3. Enter the Case Number and select Search4. Select the Case Name5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab6. Select Click to Contest this Ruling7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting8. Select Proceed.
Ruling
GOMEZ MAS, et al. vs THE LAPHAM COMPANY, INC
Jul 19, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Other Personal Injury/Propert...) |23CV041788
23CV041788: GOMEZ MAS, et al. vs THE LAPHAM COMPANY, INC07/19/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Interrogatories filed by Jesus Javier Gomez Mas (Plaintiff) in Department 520Tentative Ruling - 07/15/2024 Julia SpainThe Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion filed byJesus Javier Gomez Mas on 06/12/2024 is Denied.The motion of Plaintiff Jesus Javier Gomez Mas to compel Defendant The Lapham Company,Inc. ("Defendant") to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s judicial council form interrogatories(set one) and requests for production of documents (set one) (nos. 1-110), pursuant to CCP §§2030.290(a) and 2031.300(a), is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.1.Defendant’s two law firms are ordered to file and serve a joint declaration indicating whichfirm will be “lead counsel” – and also making it clear which firm will be responsible forresponding to discovery/motions, etc. because both the Court and Plaintiffs are entitled to know.This joint declaration SHALL BE FILED no later than Thursday July 25, 2024.2.Plaintiffs’ counsel is ordered to serve Hugo Parker LLP (service@hugoparker.com) with thediscovery at issue IMMEDIATELY (as of the date of the Order – July 19, 2024) and shallinclude a Proof of Service indicating the date of service and the discovery served.3. Defendant shall serve code-compliant discovery responses to the discovery at issue (ordered tobe electronically served as of July 19, 2024 on all Defendant’s counsel) no later than MondayAugust 19, 2024.BACKGROUNDThis is a breach of the warranty of habitability case. Plaintiffs Jesus Javier Gomez Mas andJaclyn Adams allege in the operative First Amended Complaint filed on October 19, 2023 thatthey experienced several serious problems with their apartment in Oakland since they tookpossession on or about March 1, 2021. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendant has repeatedly failedto make the necessary repairs within a reasonable period when notified of the serious problems.Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint on August 30, 2023. Plaintiffs filed the First AmendedComplaint on October 19, 2023. Plaintiffs did not timely serve the Summons and First AmendedComplaint on Defendants. See Rule of Court 3.110(b) (complaint must be served within 60 daysof the initial filing date). Plaintiffs finally filed the Proof of Service of Summons on Defendant,pursuant to CCP § 415.20(a), on February 1, 2024. Plaintiffs’ Proof of Service indicates thatDefendant was served by substitute service on January 18, 2024. Defendant did not file itsAnswer to the First Amended Complaint until March 27, 2024. Plaintiffs and Defendant did notrequest a court order allowing Defendant to file a late Answer. See Rule of Court 3.110(e) (courtorder required for any extension more than 15 days beyond the initial 30-day deadline). TheCourt is authorized to impose sanctions on parties and their attorneys for their failure to complywith the Rules of Court. Parties should not have the belief that they are not required to comply SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 23CV041788: GOMEZ MAS, et al. vs THE LAPHAM COMPANY, INC 07/19/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Interrogatories filed by Jesus Javier Gomez Mas (Plaintiff) in Department 520strictly with their statutory obligations merely because opposing counsel has indicated that theydo not object.Defendant The Lapham Company, Inc. advises the Court that it is represented by two separatelaw firms because two of its liability insurers agreed to accept its tender of defense. TheTravelers Property Casualty Company of America retained Hugo Parker, LLP, in San Francisco.State National Insurance Company retained Bennett, Gelini & Gelini, in Alameda. The Courtnotes that attorney Mark Edson of Bennett, Gelini & Gelini represented in the opposition to themotion to compel that Gregory K. Frederico of Hugo Parker LLP is Defendant’s lead counsel,and that Mr. Frederico adamantly denied the characterization of his role. Mr. Frederico statesthat the two insurers have not had any meetings or discussions regarding the feasibility of havingone firm take the lead. There is nothing unusual about the procedural posture in this case. It iscommon for parties to have more than one firm representing them in cases where more than oneinsurer is possibly on the risk.ANALYSISPlaintiff’s motion to compel is denied because he did not properly serve the subject forminterrogatories and requests for production of documents. On April 21, 2024, Plaintiff served thediscovery requests electronically only on attorney Thomas S. Gelini, of Bennett, Gelini & Gelini,and not the Hugo Parker LLP firm. Attorney Mark Edson said that he did not notice the fact thatPlaintiff served only his office with the discovery until after the responses were due. Mr. Edsonalso advises the Court that his office failed to properly calendar the response date. When Mr.Edson contacted Plaintiff’s attorney to explain what occurred and to ask for an extension of timeto respond, Mr. Bornstein indicated that he would only agree if Defendant waived its right toassert objections. See CCP §§ 2030.290(a) and 2031.300(a) (right to object is automaticallywaived if not timely asserted). Defendant did not consent to this condition. The Court notes thatMr. Edson asks the Court to grant his client relief from the waiver of objections in his oppositionpapers. The Court is not inclined to grant relief based on counsel’s vague assertion of acalendaring mistake made by his administrative staff. The Court fortunately does not need toevaluate the plausibility of Defendant’s claim of mistake, inadvertence, surprise and/or excusableneglect in any event because it is required to file a noticed motion seeking relief from waiver.See CCP §§ 2030.290(a) and 2031.300(a).Based on its review of the courtesy copies of the parties’ memoranda and declarations, the Courtconcludes that the motion to compel must be denied because Plaintiff did not properly serve theform interrogatories and requests for production on Defendant. Counsel is advised that he mustconfirm opposing counsel’s appropriate electronic service address before attempting to serve himor her with any papers electronically. See CCP § 1010.6(b)(3). Plaintiff inexplicably served thediscovery on attorney Thomas G. Gelini [sic, Thomas S. Gelini] only by electronic transmission.Plaintiff’s attorney was very much aware that Defendant had two law firms representing it in thiscase due to counsel’s numerous communications in 2023 and early 2024. Defendant’s Answer toPlaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was in fact prepared and signed by Gregory K. Frederico. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 23CV041788: GOMEZ MAS, et al. vs THE LAPHAM COMPANY, INC 07/19/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Interrogatories filed by Jesus Javier Gomez Mas (Plaintiff) in Department 520The Court notes that the parties are apparently disputing the correct email address for Mr.Frederico. The Court need not resolve this dispute at this juncture because Plaintiff did notattempt to serve Mr. Frederico with the discovery in any manner.NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on Friday, July19, 2024, unless, by no later than 4pm on Thursday, July 18, 2024, a party to the action notifiesBOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counselor self- represented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentativeruling.The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the casename], [number].” Hearings on properly contested matters will occur via online videoconferencing which can be accessed via computer or smart phone. If any party notifies the Courtthat they wish to contest the tentative ruling, the court will send out invitations to the ZoomVideo Conference.When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s)within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.
Ruling
WILLIAMS vs MODIVCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al.
Jul 18, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Motor Vehicle - Personal Inju...) |23CV034015
23CV034015: WILLIAMS vs MODIVCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al. 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") filed by Modivcare Solutions, LLC (Defendant) in Department 17Tentative Ruling - 07/16/2024 Frank RoeschThe Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion filed byModivcare Solutions, LLC on 06/12/2024 is Granted.Defendant Modivcare Solutions, LLC’s (“Defendant”) Unopposed Motion to Compel DiscoveryResponses from Plaintiff Gale Williams (“Plaintiff”) is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§2030.290, subd. (a); 2031.300, subds. (a); (b).)Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified code-compliant discovery responses to Form Interrogatories(Set One) and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) without objections on Defendantwithin twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order.As this motion was unopposed, no sanctions are issued.If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, theTentative Ruling will become the order of the court.HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?THROUGH ECOURTNotify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before thescheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps:1. Log into eCourt Public Portal2. Case Search3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search”4. Select the Case Name5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling”7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting8. Select “Proceed”BY EMAILSend an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM onecourt day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitationsto counsel to appear remotely.BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.
Ruling
RODRIGUEZ, et al. vs SEQUOIA VENTURES, INC., FORMERLY KNOWN A...
Aug 01, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Asbestos) |24CV074239
24CV074239: RODRIGUEZ, et al. vs SEQUOIA VENTURES, INC., FORMERLY KNOWN AS BECHTEL CORPORATION, et al. 08/01/2024 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference filed by ANGELA RODRIGUEZ (Plaintiff) in Department 18Tentative Ruling - 07/29/2024 Patrick McKinneyThe Motion for Trial Preference filed by ANGELA RODRIGUEZ on 07/02/2024 is Granted.I. BackgroundOn July 26, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiffs trial preference and set the trial for November 18,2024, at 9:00 a.m. (Order § IV.) The Court continued the hearing on the motion for trialpreference to issue trial setting orders. (Id. § III.)II. OrdersThe Court orders that no later than 10 days from the date the final order on this motion enters,Plaintiffs shall provide as to each defendant a “product identification” witness disclosure thatidentifies each witness, along with contact information for each witness, currently known toPlaintiffs who will identify each defendant’s product(s) and/or defendant’s premises that are thebases of Plaintiffs’ claims against each defendant. To the extent that Plaintiffs’ counselrepresents any of these product identification witnesses, Plaintiffs shall provide three dateswithin 45 days of the date of entry of the final order on this motion on which each such productidentification witness’ deposition may be taken.Within 10 days after service of Plaintiffs’ product identification information, each defendant isordered to provide the name and contact information for its respective custodian(s) of records(“COR”) and person(s) most knowledgeable (“PMQ”) with regard to (1) the asbestos content ofproducts/premises identified by Plaintiffs in the product identification disclosure, and (2)Defendant’s corporate knowledge of the hazards of asbestos. Defendant shall provide three dateswithin 60 days of the date of entry of the final order on this motion on which their respectivePMQ’s and/or COR’s depositions may be taken. The parties agree that Plaintiffs will provide anotice of deposition for any COR or PMQ witness, and no deposition will occur without serviceof a notice. The Court emphasizes: These requirements may be modified by agreement of theparties, and may not apply to defendants who have already identified their COR or PMQwitness(es).Plaintiffs and Defendants are directed to meet and confer in good faith as to other subject areasof discovery sought by the respective parties.After the witness information is exchanged, and, if, after meeting and conferring, counsel requestthat the Court determine a deposition schedule, the Court will hold a CMC with all counsel todevelop a realistic deposition schedule for non-expert witnesses approximately two weeksfollowing the witness and COR/PMQ disclosures. Counsel shall meet and confer in advance SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 24CV074239: RODRIGUEZ, et al. vs SEQUOIA VENTURES, INC., FORMERLY KNOWN AS BECHTEL CORPORATION, et al. 08/01/2024 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference filed by ANGELA RODRIGUEZ (Plaintiff) in Department 18regarding a proposed deposition schedule that will realistically enable all parties to completediscovery in a timely fashion and be prepared to offer dates for the deposition of their witnesses.At the hearing, counsel must have their respective witness’ schedules in hand for this purpose.The Court will issue an order with a deposition schedule. The depositions listed will not beunilaterally cancelled by any party without permission of the Court. If necessary, the Court mayutilize the services of a discovery referee to monitor deposition disputes.The Court also orders: • Plaintiffs shall provide defendants with all claim forms submitted by or on behalf of Plaintiffs to all bankruptcy trusts within 10 days of this order, and Plaintiffs shall provide all defendants within five court days of any future bankruptcy trust submissions. • Plaintiffs shall serve their expert economist’s report no later than 50 days after entry of the final order on this motion. • Plaintiffs will provide defendants with updated medical, Social Security and employment records within 10 days after entry of the final order on this motion, and Plaintiffs will provide any subsequently received medical, Social Security or employment records within seven days of receipt. • Fact discovery shall remain open until Monday, November 4, 2024. • Expert discovery shall remain open until Monday, November 11, 2024. • The parties are deemed to have served expert witness disclosure demands pursuant to section 2034.210 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure as of the date of this order. • Any motions for summary judgment or adjudication brought by any party may be heard within 30 days of trial but no later than Friday, November 15, 2024, and may be heard on no less than 45 days’ notice. • The deadline to respond to any pending written discovery shall be based on the Code of Civil Procedure. • The deadline to respond to new written discovery shall be 25 days. • Any party who serves an unverified response to a discovery request due to the lack of immediate availability of a verifier must verify their response within a reasonable amount of time following service of the unverified response. (See Appleton v. Super. Ct. (Cook) (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 636 (“Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.”). • Any party seeking to make a discovery motion with a shortened notice period shall seek such relief through an ex parte application. Discovery motions shall be subject to Department 18’s informal discovery conference requirements. • Electronic service through File & ServeXpress shall be deemed personal service to the extent not already so ordered by the stipulated e-service order in this action, if any. • Plaintiffs’ claims against any defendant not served with process prior to June 12, 2024, shall be severed from the preference trial ordered above. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 24CV074239: RODRIGUEZ, et al. vs SEQUOIA VENTURES, INC., FORMERLY KNOWN AS BECHTEL CORPORATION, et al. 08/01/2024 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference filed by ANGELA RODRIGUEZ (Plaintiff) in Department 18CONTESTING TENTATIVE ORDERSNotify the Court and all other parties no later than 4:00 p.m. on the day before the scheduledhearing and identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps:1. Log into eCourt Public Portal - https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov2. Case Search3. Enter the Case Number and select Search4. Select the Case Name5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab6. Select Click to Contest this Ruling7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting8. Select Proceed.
Ruling
SAYARAD vs BUTLER-LOPEZ, et al.
Jul 25, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Defamation (slander/libel)) |22CV013251
22CV013251: SAYARAD vs BUTLER-LOPEZ, et al.07/25/2024 Hearing on Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement (CCP 877.6) in Department 15Tentative Ruling - 07/22/2024 Peter BorkonThe unopposed Application for Determination of Good Faith Settlement pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure section 877.6(a)(2) by Defendant Paul Sarpen is GRANTED.The Court determines that the settlement between Plaintiff, on the one hand, and Defendant PaulSarpen and nonparties Gary Sarpen and Donnarae Sarpen (collectively, “the Sarpens”) is in goodfaith pursuant to section 877.6.Plaintiff’s claims against Paul Sarpen are DISMISSED.Any claims by any of the nonsettling Defendants (Blyth Butler-Lopez, Christies Sailors Ingram,Angelina Parra, and Amber Rose Douglas) for equitable comparative contribution or partial orcomparative equitable indemnity arising out of claims that have been or could be asserted in thiscase are barred.
Ruling
PEREZ vs NGUYEN, et al.
Aug 01, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Other Employment Complaint Case) |23CV030297
23CV030297: PEREZ vs NGUYEN, et al. 08/01/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other to Deem RFAs Admitted; filed by WILFREDO PEREZ (Plaintiff) in Department 520Tentative Ruling - 07/30/2024 Julia SpainPlaintiff Perez's uncontested Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions (Set One) Admitted isGRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)Plaintiff's evidence shows that she served Defendants ONO SNAX, LLC and VICKIE NGUYENwith Requests for Admissions (“RFAs”) on March 28, 2024, that Plaintiff’s responses were dueon April 28, 2024 (Id. at ¶ 3), but that as of June 24, 2024, the date that plaintiff filed the presentmotion, no responses to RFA (Set One) were received from either Defendant.Plaintiff has requested mandatory sanctions in the amount of $3000.00 plus the $60 filing fee,which the court finds to be excessive. Reasonable attorneys fees in the amount of $750 plus $60filing fee for a total of $810 for this unopposed pro forma motion are issued against DefendantsONO SNAX, LLC and VICKIE NGUYEn, jointly and severally, payable to Plaintiff withinthirty days of notice of entry of this order (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on AUGUST 1,2024 unless, by no later than 4pm on JULY 31, 2024, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) thecourt by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or self-represented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling.The subject line (RE: ) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the casename], [number].” When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identifythe specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants arecord of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privatelyretained court reporter must also participate via video conference. His/Her email must beprovided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed.ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTEVIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in thevideo proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party maygive email notice he/she will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all othercounsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.
Ruling
DUNN, et al. vs OE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
Jul 18, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Other Non-Personal Injury/Pro...) |22CV009792
22CV009792: DUNN, et al. vs OE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement filed by Mark William Dunn (Plaintiff) + in Department 23Tentative Ruling - 07/17/2024 Michael Markman Parties to appear. Subject to any consideration of any objections raised at the hearing, thecourt tentatively grants the motion for final approval.Join ZoomGov Meetinghttps://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16061942036Meeting ID: 160 6194 2036---One tap mobile+16692545252,,16061942036# US (San Jose)+14154494000,,16061942036# US (US Spanish Line)BACKGROUND FACTS Plaintiffs Mark William Dunn and Stephanie Dunn brought this class action on behalf ofconsumers who financed or refinanced goods with defendant OE Federal Credit Union, whoseconsumer goods were repossessed by or voluntarily surrendered to defendant, who were issued awritten notice of intent to dispose of a repossessed or surrendered consumer good, and againstwhose account a deficiency balance was assessed. Defendant agreed to settle the claims, and thecourt granted preliminary approval of the settlement on March 21, 2024.LEGAL STANDARD To prevent “fraud, collusion or unfairness to the class, the settlement or dismissal of aclass action requires court approval.” (Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794,1800.) A court “must determine the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.” (Id. at p.1801.) A “‘presumption of fairness exists where: (1) the settlement is reached through arm’s-length bargaining; (2) investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the court toact intelligently; (3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and (4) the percentage ofobjectors is small.’” (Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 116, 128[quoting Dunk, supra, at p. 1801].)DISCUSSION In this case, the settlement was reached after arm’s length negotiations, counselconducted sufficient investigation and discovery to allow counsel and the court to actintelligently, counsel cites significant experience in litigating class actions, and there are noobjectors. After preliminary approval, the settlement administrator carried out the notice processaccording to the terms of the court’s order; the administrator received no objections and norequests for exclusion from the settlement. (See generally Clark Decl.) The court approves an SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 22CV009792: DUNN, et al. vs OE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion for Final Approval of Settlement filed by Mark William Dunn (Plaintiff) + in Department 23award of attorneys’ fees and in the amount of $145,000.00 and service awards of $3,000.00 foreach named plaintiff.ORDER Plaintiff’s unopposed motion is GRANTED. The court will sign the proposed order,modified to reflect a final compliance hearing date of January 23, 2025. A final compliance hearing is set for January 23, 2025 at 10:00 am in Department 23.Plaintiff is ordered to file a final report and declaration regarding distribution at least five (5)court days before the compliance hearing. Class counsel shall hold 10% of the attorneys’ feesaward in an interest-bearing account until the completion of the distribution process and courtapproval of a final accounting. No appearances will be required if the report and declarationestablish that the distributions are complete.HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?THROUGH eCOURTNotify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before thescheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps:1. Log into eCourt Public Portal2. Case Search3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search”4. Select the Case Name5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling”7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting8. Select “Proceed”BY EMAILSend an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK (dept23@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and all the otherparties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit thedepartment clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely.Notice via BOTH eCourt AND email is required. The tentative ruling will become the ruling ofthe court if no party contests the tentative ruling.
Ruling
Custode VS Ross Stores, Inc.
Jul 16, 2024 |Civil Unlimited (Other Employment Complaint Case) |RG20060807
RG20060807: Custode VS Ross Stores, Inc. 07/16/2024 Case Management Conference in Department 23Tentative Ruling - 07/15/2024 Michael MarkmanJoin ZoomGov Meetinghttps://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16061942036Meeting ID: 160 6194 2036---One tap mobile+16692545252,,16061942036# US (San Jose)+14154494000,,16061942036# US (US Spanish Line)
Document
DANISMAN, et al. vs KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., et al.
Jun 13, 2023 |Brad Seligman |Civil Unlimited (Medical Malpractice - Physici...) |Civil Unlimited (Medical Malpractice - Physici...) |23CV035764
Document
Jul 26, 2018 |Winifred Younge Smith |Unlimited Civil |Civil Unlimited (Construction Defect) |RG18914470
Document
LOHMANN, et al. vs ALI GROUP NORTH AMERICAN CORPORATION, INDI...
Dec 06, 2022 |Richard L. Seabolt | Unlimited Civil (Asbestos) |Civil Unlimited (Asbestos) |22CV023258
Document
ANDERSEN ORTHOPEDICS, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION vs THE HARTF...
Aug 09, 2022 |Joscelyn C. Jones |Civil Unlimited (Breach of Rental/Lease Contra...) |Civil Unlimited (Breach of Rental/Lease Contra...) |22CV015868
Document
Fairley VS Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
May 31, 2019 |Winifred Younge Smith |Unlimited Civil |Civil Unlimited (Other Employment Complaint Case) |RG19021099
Document
BERTE, et al. vs YOON, et al.
Dec 08, 2021 |Rebekah B. Evenson | Unlimited Civil (Other Personal Injury/Propert...) |Civil Unlimited (Other Personal Injury/Propert...) |21CV003753
Document
Perdichizzi VS Alfar
May 23, 2005 |Lawrence John Appel |Other Real Property |Civil Unlimited (Other Real Property (not emin...) |VG05214190
Document
Santos VS WORLDPAC, INC.
Feb 17, 2021 |Winifred Younge Smith |Unlimited Civil (Other Employment Complaint Case) |Civil Unlimited (Other Employment Complaint Case) |RG21089090
