Strategic Funding Source, Inc. v. Edward Duane Bird

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 510) September 3, 2026 DEPARTMENT 510 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Please notify Department 510 via email at [email protected] and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.

14 - Gabriela Castanon, et al. v. Irma Acevedo Fernandez Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Judgment Plaintiffs Gabriela Castanon, Alejandro Romero, Leonor Carrillo, and Adan Carrillo move for an order amending the judgment to include a subsequent award of attorney's fees. Defendant did not file an opposition.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d) provides, "The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed."

On January 21, 2026, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs following a bench trial. The judgment stated that an attorney fee award was "to be determined upon Plaintiffs' filing the appropriate motion for attorney's fees." (Judgment, P. 5.)

Plaintiffs then filed a motion for attorney fees as the prevailing party and were awarded $64,200. Plaintiffs request the Court include this awarded amount on the judgment. The Court will do so.

Disposition

Plaintiffs Gabriela Castanon, Alejandro Romero, Leonor Carrillo, and Adan Carrillo's motion for an order to amend the judgment is granted. The Court will amend the judgment to include the attorney fee award of $64,200. Plaintiffs are to submit a proposed amended judgment for consideration by the Court within five court days.

Case Number: 26STCV14169 Hearing Date: September 3, 2026 Dept: 510 No. 16 - Strategic Funding Source, Inc. v. Edward Duane Bird Plaintiff Strategic Funding Source, Inc.'s Motion to Strike Answer Plaintiff Strategic Funding Source, Inc. moves to strike Defendant Edward Duane Bird's answer filed on June 22, 2026.

A party may move to strike portions of pleadings that are "not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 436(b).)

Plaintiff argues that the answer's "lack-of-information" denials are improper because they act as general denials to a verified complaint. The Court disagrees. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30(d), "If the complaint is verified . . . the denial of the allegations shall be made positively or according to the information and belief of the defendant." Defendant is permitted to assert lack of information in his answer.

Plaintiff also argues that Defendant's answer is defective because it is not verified. "When the complaint is verified, the answer shall be verified." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 446.) The Court agrees and will strike Defendant's answer on this basis.

Disposition

Plaintiff Strategic Funding Source, Inc.'s motion to strike Defendant's answer is granted with leave to amend. The Court hereby strikes Defendant Edward Duane Bird's answer filed on June 22, 2026. Defendant is to file an amended verified answer within 10 days.

Case Number: 26STCV17841 Hearing Date: September 3, 2026 Dept: 510 No. 15 - Malachi James McGee v. Keith T. Laidley, et al. Defendants Keith T. Laidley and Pierpont Milton Laidley Trust's Motion to Quash Service of Summons Defendants Keith T. Laidley and Pierpont Milton Laidley Trust separately move to quash service of summons by Plaintiff Malachi James McGee.

"[O]nce a defendant files a motion to quash the burden is on the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the validity of the service and the court's jurisdiction over the defendant." (Bolkiah v. Superior Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 984, 991.)

Plaintiff does not meet his burden to show valid service on Defendants. There are three proofs of service filed with the Court. The first proof of service was filed on June 22, 2026. It indicates personal service on Keith T. Laidley and Ana Laidley on June 8, 2026.

The second and third proofs of service were filed after Defendants filed their motions to quash. The second proof of service indicates service on party "Robin Chow" via personal service on August 10, 2026, and substitute service on Keith T. Laidley and Ana Laidley on June 8, 2026. The third proof of service indicates personal service of the complaint and other documents on "Robin Chow."

First, there is no valid proof of service showing proper service on Defendant Pierpont Milton Laidley Trust. To serve a trust, Plaintiff must identify and serve the trustee in his or her representative capacity. (See Prob. Code, Sec. 18004; CCP Sec. 416.90.) Plaintiff has not identified any trustee. Robin Chow is counsel for Defendants. Service on counsel is not sufficient to constitute personal service on a trustee. In addition, it is unclear if either Keith T. Laidley or Ana Laidley are trustees. Plaintiff does not provide any clarity in his opposition brief.

Second, for service on Defendant Keith T. Laidley, Defendant denies that he was ever personally served the summons and complaint on June 8, 2026. Keith T. Laidley attests that he was not present at his residence when service was effected on his wife, on his behalf. (Keith Laidley Decl., P. 4.) Ana Laidley attests "Keith T. Laidley was not present at the residence when the server arrived on June 8, 2026. The server did not ask me whether Keith T. Laidley was available or when he would be available." (Ana Laidley Decl., P. 4.)

Therefore, it is Plaintiff's burden to prove the validity of the personal service on Keith Laidley. Plaintiff does not meet this burden. His