SHERIFF'S STATUS RESPONSE (IN CUSTODY TARRANT CO) December 22, 2016 (2024)

Case

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA VS. AZARAH SWAYNE

Aug 16, 2024 |Civil - Contract |Debt/Contract - Debt/Collection |352-355802-24

Case

FARAWAY SG, LLC VS. JD HOME SOLUTIONS 4U, LLC, BY AND THROUGH ITS MEMBER, DONOVAN RICHARD

Aug 19, 2024 |Civil - Contract |Other Civil |017-355903-24

Case

SHAREECE RINGO VS. JOSHUA RIVERA

Aug 16, 2024 |Civil - Injury or Damage |Motor Vehicle Accident |236-355779-24

Case

B9 SEQUOIA PORT AMERICA OWNER LP VS. TARRANT APPRAISAL DISTRICT

Aug 19, 2024 |Civil - Other Civil |Other Civil |348-355907-24

Case

FELISHA THOMPSON VS. FARMERS TEXAS COUNTY MUTUALINSURANCE COMPANY

Aug 19, 2024 |Civil - Injury or Damage |Motor Vehicle Accident |236-355898-24

Case

SWAPNA SUNDARI LTD PARTNERSHIP VS. TARRANT APPRAISAL DISTRICT

Aug 16, 2024 |Civil - Other Civil |Other Civil |236-355788-24

Case

AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANKvsAARON MAYBEN

Aug 16, 2024 |Pierson, Don |Civil - Contract |Debt/Contract - Debt/Collection |2024-005949-1

Case

CHESAPEAKE FW PARTNERS LLC VS. TARRANT APPRAISAL DISTRICT

Aug 16, 2024 |Civil - Other Civil |Other Civil |141-355821-24

Case

CAPITAL ONE, N.A. VS. CHERIE R RUSSELL

Aug 19, 2024 |Civil - Contract |Debt/Contract - Debt/Collection |342-355899-24

Ruling

SYNCHRONY BANK vs LIVINGSTON

Aug 22, 2024 |CVSW2108422

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSALSYNCHRONY BANK VSCVSW2108422 AND ENTER JUDGMENT BYLIVINGSTONSYNCHRONY BANKTentative Ruling: Motion unopposed. Motion GRANTED. The court will sign theAmended Proposed Judgment.

Ruling

Northern California Collection Service, Inc. vs Lora Fielder

Aug 20, 2024 |23CV-04730

23CV-04730 Northern California Collection Service, Inc. v. Lora FielderPlaintiff’s Motion to Deem Documents GenuinePlaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Deem Documents Genuine is GRANTED.Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and forMonetary Sanctions of $670.Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Special Interrogatories, SetOne, and for Monetary Sanctions of $670 is GRANTED.

Ruling

Olivia Villalovos vs James Balster et al

Tentative not yet posted, please check again.

Ruling

Creditors Adjustment Bureau, INC. vs. Factory OS, INC. et al

Aug 21, 2024 |CU23-05770

CU23-05770Motion to set aside defaultTENTATIVE RULINGThe Parties are to appear.

Ruling

OneMain Financial Group, LLC vs. Escalante

Aug 23, 2024 |23CVG-00811

ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC VS. ESCALANTECase Number: 23CVG-00811Tentative Ruling on Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted: The present motionis unopposed. Plaintiff OneMain Financial Group, LLC as servicer for Wilmington Trust N.A., asIssuer Loan Trustee, seeks an order deeming admitted the truth of matters specified in Plaintiff’sRequests for Admissions, Set One, which were served on Defendant Marissa Escalante by mail onFebruary 12, 2024.Merits of Motion: When a party fails to respond to a request for admission, the requesting partymay move for an order deeming the genuineness of documents and the truth of matters specifiedin the requests admitted. CCP § 2033.280(b). Failure to respond also waives any objections to thediscovery propounded. CCP § 2033.280(a). Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motionto compel responses when no responses have been provided does not require the propoundingparty to demonstrate good cause or that it satisfied a meet-and-confer requirement. SinaikoHealthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390.Here, Plaintiff’s moving papers sufficiently demonstrate that the discovery was served by mail andDefendant has failed to respond within the required time frame. The request to deem the mattersadmitted is granted.Monetary sanctions are mandatory per CCP 2033.280(c); however, Plaintiff did not seek monetarysanctions and provided no evidence regarding attorney’s fees or other costs associated withbringing the motion. Sanctions should only be imposed for “reasonable” expenses. CCP §2023.030. The Court does not have information upon which to make a finding that any amount ofsanctions were for reasonable expenses and will not impose sanctions. The motion is GRANTED.A proposed order was lodged with the Court and will be executed.

Ruling

COMPASS CONCIERGE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS CARCASSONNE FINE HOMES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Aug 23, 2024 |22SMCV01037

Case Number: 22SMCV01037 Hearing Date: August 23, 2024 Dept: 205 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles West District Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 COMPASS CONCIERGE LLC, Plaintiff, v. CARCASSONE FINE HOMES, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No.: 22SMCV01037 Hearing Date: August 23, 2024 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SET ASIDE DISMISSAL BACKGROUND This is a breach of contract case. Plaintiff Compass Concierge LLC entered into an agreement with Defendants Carcassone Fine Homes, LLC and Nile Niami to provide goods and/or services. Plaintiff claims Defendants breached the contract by failing to make $200,000 in payments due under the contract. The operative complaint alleges four claims for (1) breach of contract, (2) open book account, (3) account stated and (4) quantum meruit. On July 8, 2024, the Court held an OSC re Plaintiffs failure to file default prove up papers as to Defendants who had been served but failed to appear. Plaintiff did not file a written response to the OSC, and also failed to file any default prove up papers. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the case for failure to prosecute. (Ex. D to Chow Decl.) This hearing is on Plaintiffs motion to vacate the dismissal. Plaintiff argues that relief should be granted because default as to Defendant Niami was filed on June 27, 2024, before the OSC hearing on July 8, 2024, and default as to Defendant Carcassone Fine Homes LLC was filed but rejected due to a defective proof of service which Plaintiff has since corrected. (Ex. B to Chow Decl.; Chow Decl. ¶5.) There was no opposition filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §473(b), both discretionary and mandatory relief are available to parties when a case is dismissed. Discretionary relief is available under the statute as the court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 473(b).) Alternatively, mandatory relief is available when accompanied by an attorneys sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. (Id.) The purpose of the attorney affidavit provision is to relieve the innocent client of the burden of the attorneys fault, to impose the burden on the erring attorney, and to avoid precipitating more litigation in the form of malpractice suits. (Hu v. Fang (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 61, 64.) Mandatory relief is available even if counsels neglect was inexcusable. (SJP Limited Partnership v. City of Los Angeles (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 511, 516517.) An application for discretionary or mandatory relief must be made no more than six months after entry of the judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding from which relief is sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b); English v. IKON Business Solutions (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 143.) [W]hen relief under section 473¿is¿available, there is a strong¿public¿policy¿in¿favor¿of granting relief and allowing the requesting party his or her day in court[.] (Rappleyea v. Campbell¿(1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975, 981-82.) Any doubt in applying section 473, subdivision (b), must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief. (Bonzer v. City of Huntington Park (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th 1474,¿1477-1478.) Where relief is promptly sought and no prejudice would be done to the opposing party, only very slight evidence is required to justify the setting¿aside of a default. For this reason, orders denying relief under section 473 are carefully scrutinized on appeal. (Rappleyea v. Campbell¿(1994) 8 Cal..4th 975, 980;¿Elston v. City of Turlock¿(1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233.) DISCUSSION The mandatory relief provision of §473(b) refers to both default judgment or dismissal. The inclusion of dismissal by the Legislature was intended to put plaintiffs whose cases are dismissed for failing to respond to a dismissal motion on the same footing with defendants who are defaulted for failing to respond to an action. (Jackson v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 166, 175.). However, although the language of the mandatory provision, on its face, affords relief from unspecified dismissals caused by attorney neglect, our courts have, through judicial construction, prevented it from being used indiscriminately by plaintiffs attorneys as a perfect escape hatch to undo dismissals of civil cases. (Nacimiento Regional Water Management Advisory Committee v. Monterey County Water Resources Agency (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 961, 967.) Courts have construed the provision as reaching only dismissals that are procedurally equivalent to a default. (Jackson, 32 Cal.App.4th at 174.) Dismissals that are sufficiently distinct from a default, thereby falling outside the scope of the mandatory provision, include dismissals for failure to prosecute, dismissals for failure to serve a complaint within three years, dismissals based on running of the statute of limitations and voluntary dismissals entered pursuant to settlement. (Leader v. Health Industries of America Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 620.) Here, the dismissal was for failure to prosecute, namely that Plaintiff failed to file default prove-up papers. Accordingly, Plaintiff is not entitled to mandatory relief. However, the Court concludes Plaintiff is entitled to discretionary relief. Discretionary relief is available where there is mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 473(b).) The mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect¿must¿be reasonable¿to justify discretionary relief.¿ (Conway v. Municipal Court¿(1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 1009, 1017; see¿Carroll v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.¿(1982) 32 Cal.3d 892, 898.) Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff attempted to comply with the Courts instruction to file default prove-up papers but the papers were either filed and not processed by the time of the OSC hearing on July 8, 2024, or the papers were rejected due to defects in the proof of service which counsel has now corrected. (Chow Decl. ¶3.) Given the strong policy favoring a resolution of cases on their merits, the Court grants the motion to set aside dismissal. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to set aside dismissal. The action is reinstated. The Court sets a case management conference for October 1, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 23, 2024 ___________________________ Edward B. Moreton, Jr. Judge of the Superior Court

Ruling

Advantage Leasing Corporation vs. Tarandeep Singh

Aug 22, 2024 |24CECG02181

Re: Advantage Leasing Corporation v. Tarandeep Singh Superior Court Case No. 24CECG02181Hearing Date: August 22, 2024 (Dept. 503)Motion: Plaintiff Advantage Leasing Corporation’s Application for Writ of PossessionTentative Ruling: To deny, without prejudice.Explanation: Plaintiff has filed an application for writ of possession regarding two vehiclesfinanced by defendant Unified Express Inc., with a personal guaranty by defendantTarandeep Singh. Defendants were served by substituted service with the applicationfor writ of possession at the same time as they were served with the summons andcomplaint. While the application is unopposed, plaintiff has failed to meet its burdenand therefore the application is denied. While plaintiff has provided an estimated fair market value, there are two issueswith the values for both vehicles. First, the values have typographical errors that makethem uncertain, based on there being only two zeroes following the commas in each.The 2016 Utility Reefer Trailer is valued at “13,00.00” and the 2014 Utility Trailer is valued at“$10,00.00”. (Sino Decl., ¶¶ 14-15.) Second, there is no documentation provided tosupport the estimated fair market value of the vehicles. This also means that there isinsufficient information to assess plaintiff’s claim that the undertaking should be waivedas to plaintiff and insufficient information for what defendant’s undertaking would be toprevent seizure of the property. Should plaintiff submit a new application for thesevehicles, plaintiff must evidence the value of all items listed in the application. The declaration also includes insufficient information about the probable locationof the vehicles. The application indicates two possible last known addresses fordefendant, but there is no explanation in the declaration for this belief. Code of CivilProcedure section 512.060, subdivision (b) requires the plaintiff to demonstrate probablecause to believe the vehicles are located at a specific place. Plaintiff’s description failsto provide probable cause. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Proceduresection 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute orderadopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerkwill constitute notice of the order.Tentative RulingIssued By: jyh on 8/20/24 . (Judge’s initials) (Date)

Ruling

Synchrony Bank vs. Henig

Aug 21, 2024 |23CVG-00319

SYNCHRONY BANK VS. HENIGCase Number: 23CVG-00319This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of settlement and/or dismissal. The Court notes that Noticeof Conditional Settlement was filed on October 10, 2023. Due to the conditional settlement, the Court deems thismatter exempt from case disposition time standards. The Court sets this matter for a Review Hearing on June 9,2025. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

Document

EXETER FINANCE LLC vs. DAVIS, TRIANA A

Sep 19, 2023 |DEDRA DAVIS |SWORN ACCOUNT |SWORN ACCOUNT |202363822

Document

VO, HOANG vs. NGUYEN, TRAM

Dec 05, 2023 |TAMIKA CRAFT-DEMMING |Foreign Judgment |Foreign Judgment |202383705

Document

Document

RON, AVISHAI vs. OREM CULLEN LP

Document

Dec 05, 2023 |BRITTANYE MORRIS |SWORN ACCOUNT |SWORN ACCOUNT |202383866

Document

MAYO, MATHEW vs. TITAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT LLC

Dec 05, 2023 |BRITTANYE MORRIS |SWORN ACCOUNT |SWORN ACCOUNT |202383921

Document

TALLY PRODUCTION SYSTEMS LLC vs. LOCIN OIL CORPORATION

Dec 08, 2023 |MICHAEL GOMEZ |SWORN ACCOUNT |SWORN ACCOUNT |202384746

Document

LINICAM INVESTMENTS LLC vs. US BANK NA

Sep 21, 2023 |JERALYNN MANOR |Fraudulent Liens |Fraudulent Liens |202364319