Bank of America vs. Sunshine Roybal

LINE CASE NO. CASE TITLE TENTATIVE RULING 9:00 19CV357918 Bank of America vs. Defendant moves this court to set aside default judgment claiming improper 1 Sunshine Roybal service. Default judgment was entered 18 years ago. Defendant’s motion is not timely. Motion is DENIED.

9:00 24CV453375 Wells Fargo Bank Plaintiff moves this court to enter a judgment against defendant. Defendant filed 2 vs.Mahan no objection to Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff and defendant entered into a valid contract, Plaintiff performed the contract by extending credit to the defendant, the defendant breached that contract by not paying, and Plaintiff suffered damages as a result. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

9:00 25CV462132 Silviera, et.al. v. Plaintiff moves this court for leave to file an amended complaint. Defendant filed 3 Khan, et.al. no opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

9:00 25CV467505 Avatar Singh vs. Plaintiff petitions this court to compel further production of documents from 4 America Honda Defendant. This court finds that RFP No. 7 is relevant and has been provided by Motor Company defendant. This court finds that RFP No. 16 is also relevant and orders defendant to produce documents. This court finds that RFP No. 17-26 requesting ESI regarding electrical and body defects is relevant and orders Defendant to provide such documents. This court finds that RFP No. 43-45 are overbroad and Plaintiffs request is denied.

This court finds that RFP No. 46-47 related to call center scripts for customer service agents regarding electrical or defect of subject vehicle is relevant. This court finds that RFP No. 53 for customer service organizational charts is overbroad. This court finds that RFP No., 75 asking for documents related to technical service bulletin is relevant. This court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s petition to compel for RFP No. 16, 17-16, 46-47, and 75. This court DENIES Plaintiff’s petition to compel RFP No. 7, 43-45, and 53.

9:00 25CV483263 Bank of America vs. See below. 5-6 Juniel

9:00 25CV470890 Midland Credit Defendant moves this court to quash service of Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff was 7 Management vs. served through substitute service at his house. Plaintiff made several attempts to Fitch serve Defendant personally. Defendant filed statement with several witnesses indicating no one was at home. Defendant’s evidence is insufficient to rebut the presumption of valid service. Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

9:01 19CV344261 George Veloria et.al. Plaintiff moves this court for relief from court’s dismissal of case without prejudice. 1 vs Ferdinand Adona Plaintiff’s case was dismissed when both parties failed to appear at last court proceeding. Plaintiff’s attorney explained the problem as a mistake or inadvertence as he never received notice of date. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.