Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted
Request for Sanctions Against Defendant And its Counsel of Record, Jointly and Severally, in the Amount of $7,260.00- DROPPED, as MOOT, based on the 6-23-26 Joint Status Statement advising that the parties have resolved all outstanding issues.
b) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant Belmare Senior Living LLC to Provide Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; Request for Sanctions Against Defendant and its Counsel of Record, Jointly and Severally, in the Amount of $7,260.00 - DROPPED, as MOOT, based on the 6-23-26 Joint Status Statement advising that the parties have resolved all outstanding issues.
a-b) DROPPED, as MOOT, based on the 6-23-26 Joint Status Statement advising that the parties have resolved all outstanding issues.
CV-24-008809 - TIMMINS, LACEY vs CLEARCAPITALCOM INC - Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint - GRANTED. Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated grounds for the proposed amendment. The Court has broad discretion in this area and there is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec.Sec. 473(a)(1), 576.) Therefore, Plaintiff shall submit the Second Amended Complaint for filing within 10 days.
Further, the Court recognizes that this ruling renders the pending motions for summary judgment moot, as they are based on the superseded First Amended Complaint. (See, e.g. State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1130, and authorities there referenced.) It is error to rule on a summary judgment motion under such circumstances. (Id., at 1131.)
While Defendants advocate for the imposition of certain conditions on the Court's granting of the instant motion, i.e., allowing the pending motions for summary judgment to be renewed for hearing as presently noticed, the Court concludes that such conditions are not warranted herein. Defendants may renew their summary judgment motions to address the issues raised by the Second Amended Complaint but should do so as prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the summary judgment hearing dates are VACATED, subject to renewal by Defendants after the Second Amended Complaint is placed at issue. Plaintiff shall submit a revised form of order consistent with the Court's ruling herein.
CV-25-006281 - JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS LLC vs FERNANDEZ, DAVID ALEXANDER - Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted (C.C.P Section 2033.280) - GRANTED, and unopposed. The Court finds that Defendant has failed to respond to the subject discovery entirely and objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(a).) Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Plaintiff's request. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(c); St. Mary's v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4 th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted. The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
CV-26-001860 - SELFHELP ENTERPRISES vs NORTHEAST TERRITORIES PATTERSON LLC - Defendant's Demurrer to Amend Complaint of Plaintiff Self-Help Industries - HEARING REQUIRED. As a preliminary matter, the Court requires more information relative to 2 points raised in the opposition before ruling on the demurrer herein.
First, the Court proposes to take judicial notice of the fact that VOP 2.1, LLC's corporate status is currently suspended in California. While Plaintiff makes this argument in the opposing memorandum and Defendant does not expressly deny it in the reply, no request for judicial notice or supporting evidence has been submitted in this regard. Therefore, the parties shall appear at the time of the hearing to present information relevant to the propriety of taking judicial notice of the above matter.(Evid. Code Sec. 455.) In addition, the parties shall be prepared to discuss the appropriate course of action as to VOP 2.1, LLC's ability to pursue the instant demurrer in defense of the litigation in the event the Court does determine to take judicial notice of this fact.
Next, the Court notes Plaintiff's representation that Northeast Territories Patterson, LLC is being dismissed from the case, rendering that defendant's arguments on demurrer moot. No request for dismissal appears in the Court's file at this point in time; if the same is not on file by the time of the hearing, the parties shall appear to advise the Court on this issue.