De La Torre v. CalOptima Health

Bijan Mohseni appears to demonstrate good cause for granting the motion based on the allegations that there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, and the attorney can no longer represent Plaintiff’s interest in this matter.

Additionally, all required judicial counsel forms (MC- 051, MC-052, and MC-053) have been utilized and properly served. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a)-(d).) Plaintiff was served by mail at their last known address.

The Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record is GRANTED.

Court will interlineate the proposed order (ROA 97) to include MSC and Trial dates.

Attorney is relieved as counsel of record upon filing the proof of service of the order.

Moving party to give notice.

106 Mann v. Paley, 2025- 01521967 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint – GRANTED

Plaintiff Dianna Mann moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 473 and 576 to file a First Amended Complaint. Defendants Catherine E. Paley and Peter A. Paley oppose the motion.

The court may allow a party to amend any pleading in furtherance of justice, even after trial has begun. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 473(a), 576.)

Courts liberally allow amendments to permit lawsuits to be determined on their merits. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Desney v. Wilder (1956) 46 Cal.2d 715, 751.) “It is well established that ‘California courts have a policy of great liberality in allowing amendments at any stage of the proceeding so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits where the authorization does not prejudice the substantial rights of others.” (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.)

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff met all procedural requirements and provided all information in support of the proposed amendment pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a) & (b).

Plaintiff shall file the proposed First Amended Complaint within 10 days of this order.

Plaintiff to give notice. 107 O’Kane v. Radovich, 2022-01276312 Motion to Continue Trial – MOOT 108 Premier Liberty Development LLC v. Nguyen, 2018- 01008782 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment – DENIED

This case involves the priority of deeds of trust on a piece of commercial real property. Plaintiff Premier Liberty Development’s operative complaint contains a single cause of action for declaratory relief of three issues: (1) the reconveyance of Premier’s deed of trust was forged and the Premier deed of trust remains superior to Defendant Velocity Commercial Capital’s deed of trust (2) Premier had the right to foreclose on its lien created by the Premier deed of trust which remains as a lien on the Property superior to any claim by any defendant (including Velocity) to the Property after the recording of the Premier Deed of Trust; and (3) Velocity must disgorge and refund to Premier all sums which it received as restitution, specifically, the sum of $2,573,757, together will all accrued interest from and after November 7, 2024, at the legal rate of ten percent (10%).

To prevail on a motion for summary adjudication, a plaintiff must show that there is no defense to the cause of action, by proving each element of the cause of action itself. Once plaintiff makes such a showing, the burden shifts to the defendants to show a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. (Code Civ. Proc., §437c(p)(1).)

“To qualify for declaratory relief under section 1060, plaintiffs were required to show their action presented two essential elements: ‘(1) a proper subject of declaratory relief, and (2) an actual controversy