Currie v. Field Asset Services CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Nov 17, 2014 No. B253379Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a motion for summary judgment served by overnight mail is timely if the required 75-day notice period plus two court days is calculated from the date of mailing, not the date of receipt.

Issues

Whether a motion for summary judgment served by overnight mail is timely if the notice period is calculated from the date of mailing rather than the date of receipt.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Service is complete at the time of mailing.”

“Currie’s argument that service was effective on the date of receipt, and that 75 days ran from that date, is based on an incorrect interpretation of the statute.”

“Service was timely under section 473c, subdivision (a).”

Filed 11/17/14 Currie v. Field Asset Services CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

MANEVA A. CURRIE, B253379

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC117168) v.

FIELD ASSET SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, Richard A. Stone. Affirmed. Maneva A. Currie, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Wingert Grebing Brubaker & Juskie, Deborah S. Dixon, Andrew B. Kleiner, for Defendant and Respondent. ________________________

Plaintiff Maneva A. Currie appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Field Asset Services, LLC (Field Asset). The only issue clearly identified in Currie’s opening brief1 is that Field Asset failed to file its motion for summary judgment within the time required by statute. Because this contention lacks merit, we affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

Currie’s operative complaint alleged 14 causes of action against numerous parties.2 Currie alleged Field Asset engaged in unlawful business practices on behalf of U.S. Bank (the bank) in connection with the bank’s foreclosure on property in which Currie was a tenant. An unlawful detainer judgment was obtained against Currie, and all of her property was removed from the residence. Currie alleged in her first cause of action that Field Asset engaged in unlawful and wrongful eviction by posting an unsigned judgment at the residence before eviction. Currie’s fourth cause of action against Field Asset alleged unfair competition based upon the bank’s conduct throughout its dealings with Currie. Her sixth cause of action alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by removing her property from the residence without lawful documentation. The seventh cause of action alleges negligent infliction of emotional distress, although no specific allegation is made against Field

Currie v. Field Asset Services CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

MANEVA A. CURRIE, B253379

FIELD ASSET SERVICES, LLC,

BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

KRIEGLER, J.

AI Brief