Preview
ROBERT K. HANNA, State Bar No.: 341970 JUNQIAO XIAO, State Bar No.: 341670 1 HYO JIN JULIA JUNG, State Bar No.: 316090 2 MICHAEL D. KAHN, State Bar No.: 236898 LAMONT FREEMAN, State Bar No.: 349862 3 MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC 350 CAMINO DE LA REINA, SUITE 100 4 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 300-8750 5 Facsimile: (858) 309-1588 6 CaliforniaLegal@mcmcg.com California Debt Collection License #10644-99 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 9 GORDON D. SCHABER DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE10 MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. Case No.11 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR:12 vs. (1) Account Stated13 CELINA COPELAND; PRAYER AMT: $2,010.2314 and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive LIMITED15 Defendant.16 MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., ("Plaintiff"), by counsel, sues CELINA COPELAND,17 (“Defendant”) under Account Stated and in support thereof states:18 1. Plaintiff is authorized to do business in CALIFORNIA, with its principal place of19 business at 350 CAMINO DE LA REINA SUITE 100 SAN DIEGO CA 92108. Plaintiff20 owns portfolios of consumer receivables, which it attempts to collect. Plaintiff strives to21 treat its consumers, such as Defendant, with respect, compassion and integrity, hoping to provide mutually-beneficial opportunities for consumers to repay their debts and attain22 financial recovery.23 2. Defendant is a resident of SACRAMENTO County, State of California and is subject to24 this Court’s jurisdiction.25 3. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued by the fictitious26 names DOES 1 through 10. Plaintiff will ask leave of court to amend this complaint as27 and when the true names and capacities of Defendants named herein as DOES 1 through28 10 have been ascertained. Pursuant to California Civil Code (“CA CIVIL”) §1788.58(a)(1)-(9), Plaintiff alleges: 4. Plaintiff is a debt buyer as defined by CA CIVIL §1788.50(a). -1- COMPLAINTCA_0132G File No.: 24-194503 SCP 1 5. Defendant established an account (the “Account”) with COMENITY CAPITAL BANK. 2 The amount due is the result of transactions that occurred on the Account. Defendant was provided statements evidencing Defendant’s use of the Account and the balance due. 3 Defendant failed to make the required payments and subsequently defaulted on the 4 Account on July 11, 2022. Thereafter, Plaintiff was assigned all rights, title, and interest 5 in the Account. 6 6. Plaintiff is the sole owner of the debt. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of 7 the Bill of Sale from COMENITY CAPITAL BANK, to Plaintiff. The Account was 8 purchased by Plaintiff on January 26, 2023. 9 7. The Account balance at the time of charge-off was $2,210.23. Plaintiff alleges that the date of default is July 11, 2022 and the date of the last payment was July 11, 2023.10 8. The name of the charge-off creditor at the time of charge-off is COMENITY CAPITAL11 BANK. The address utilized by COMENITY CAPITAL BANK at the time of charge-off12 was 2795 E. COTTONWOOD PARKWAY SUITE 100 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84121.13 At the time of charge off, the account number associated with the debt was14 XXXXXXXXXX-XX-7131.15 9. The name of the debtor as it appeared in the records of COMENITY CAPITAL BANK is16 CELINA COPELAND and the last known address as it appeared in the records of17 COMENITY CAPITAL BANK is 136 DOLPHIN WAY RIO LINDA CA 95673. 10. The name and address of all post charge-off purchasers of the debt are as follows:18 Name Address19 MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, 350 CAMINO DE LA REINA SUITE 100 SAN INC. DIEGO CA 921082021 11. Plaintiff has complied with the provisions of CA CIVIL §1788.52. Plaintiff informed22 Defendant of the assignment of the Account.23 12 Pursuant to CA CIVIL §1788.58(b), attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a24 monthly statement recording a purchase transaction, payment, or balance transfer while the Account was active as required by CA CIVIL §1788.52(b).25262728 -2- COMPLAINTCA_0132G File No.: 24-194503 SCP 1 13. Pursuant to CA CIVIL §1788.58(b), attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a 2 billing statement that was mailed to Defendant stating the balance due on the Account at or around the time of charge-off. 3 14. Plaintiff acquired all right, title, and interest to the Account. To the extent that Plaintiff 4 acts in its capacity as successor-in-interest to the original creditor or its assigns, 5 references herein to Plaintiff may include Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest. 6 15. Plaintiff has attempted to contact Defendant through several means in an effort to resolve 7 the Account, but has been unsuccessful. Defendant has not repaid this debt. Plaintiff 8 works with consumers like Defendant to find mutually acceptable solutions, often 9 offering discounts, hardship plans, and a variety of payment options. The majority of Plaintiff's consumers ignore calls or letters, and some simply refuse to repay their10 obligations. When this happens, Plaintiff must decide whether to pursue collection11 through legal channels, including litigation such as the present action against Defendant.12 Nonetheless, Plaintiff remains interested in discovering a mutually beneficial solution13 through voluntary payments, if possible, in this case.14 16. Before commencement of this action, Plaintiff informed Defendant in writing, that it15 intended to file this action and that this action could result in a judgment against16 Defendant that would include court costs allowed by California Code of Civil Procedure § 1033(b)(2).171819202122232425262728 -3- COMPLAINTCA_0132G File No.: 24-194503 SCP 1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 2 ACCOUNT STATED 17. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs. 3 18. An account was stated in writing between Defendant and COMENITY CAPITAL 4 BANK. Defendant opened and derived benefit from the Account. By using the Account, 5 Defendant expressly or impliedly promised to repay COMENITY CAPITAL BANK. 6 Within the last four years, Defendant became indebted on the Account. 7 19. On the Account, a balance of $2,210.23 was stated to be due to COMENITY CAPITAL 8 BANK from Defendant. Plaintiff has no record of Defendant objecting to the balance 9 due. 20. Before the commencement of this action, Plaintiff was assigned the Account and10 indebtedness. Plaintiff is now the sole owner of the Account.11 21. Plaintiff has made a demand on Defendant for repayment of the Account, but Defendant12 has failed to pay the balance due.13 22. The current balance presently due and owing is $2,010.23 which includes payments, set-14 offs, credits or allowances, if any, at or after charge-off.1516 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendant for $2,010.23, costs of this action and post judgment interest at the statutory rate. Plaintiff waives any claim for pre- judgment interest and17 attorney's fees.181920 Dated: August 27, 2024 MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.2122 By:23 ROBERT K. HANNA / □ JUNQIAO XIAO MICHAEL D. KAHN / □ HYO JIN JULIA JUNG24 LAMONT FREEMAN25262728 -4- COMPLAINTCA_0132G File No.: 24-194503 SCPEXHIBIT A EXHlBIT A BILL OF SALE Comenity Capital Bank ("Seller"), for value received and pursuant to the terms andconditions of that certain Credit Card Account Purchase Agreement dated October 25,2019 between Seller and Midland Credit Management, Inc. ("Purchaser"), its successorsand assigns ("Credit Card Account Purchase Agreement"), hereby assigns effective as ofthe Closing Date of January 26, 2023 all rights, title and interest of Seller in and to thosecertain Accounts described in the Credit Card Account Purchase Agreement andSchedule 1 (the "Asset Schedule") attached hereto and made part hereof for all purposes,to Purchaser.The information contained in the Sale File (collectively, "Seller's AccountsInformation") is true and complete as of the File Creation Date. Further, all of theinformation contained in Seller's Accounts Information (a) constitutes Seller's ownbusiness records regarding the Accounts and (b) accurately reflects in all materialrespects the information about the Accounts in Seller's possession. All of Seller'sAccounts Information has been kept in the regular course of Seller's business, and wasmade or compiled at or near the time of the event and recorded by (or from informationtransmitted by) a person (i) with knowledge of the data entered into and maintained inSeller's business records, or (ii) who caused the data to be entered into and maintained inSeller's business records. All capitalized terms used, but not defined, in this Bill of Saleshall have the meanings assigned to such term in the Credit Card Account PurchaseAgreement.This Bill of Sale is executed without recourse except as stated in the Credit Card AccountPurchase Agreement to which this is an Exhibit. No other representation of or warranty oftitle or enforceability is expressed or implied.COMENITY CAPITAL BANK Midland Credit Management, Inc.By: ~ /ff.Eu 1 {. { ~ , By: ~ / 6 '}/JN~Date: .3/ I /J0:).3 Date: 4/6/2023 . Danielle WohlfehrtTitle: Chief Credit Officer TIt1e SCHEDULE 1 TO BILL OF SALE ASSET SCHEDULEThe individual Accounts transferred pursuant to the Credit Card Account Purchase Agreement andBill of Sale are described in the electronic file namedMCMG_CB_JAN_2023_DPL_CCB.TXT;MCMG_CB_JAN_2023_LCS_CCB.TXT and deliveredby Comenity Capital Bank to Midland Credit Management, Inc. on January 20, 2023 andsummarized in the table immediately below (the "Sale File"). # of Charged-off Percent File Creation Date Aggregate Unpaid Balance Accounts 1/ 20 / 202 3 EXBIBITB CLOSING STATEMENTAGREEMENT DATE: October 25, 2019SELLER: COMENITY CAPITAL BANKPURCHASER: Midland Credit Management, Inc. MCMG_CB_JAN_2023_ DPL_CCB. TXT; MCMG_ CB_JAN_2023 _ LCS_ CCB. TXTFILE NUMBER:NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS:TOTAL UNPAID BALANCE:PURCHASE PRICEPERCENTAGE:PURCHASE PRICE:FILE CREATION DATE: January 20, 2023CLOSING DATE: January 26, 2023WIRING INSTRUCTIONS PORTFOLIO LEVEL AFFIDAVIT OF SALE BY ORIGINAL CREDITORState of Utah§County of Salt LakeOn._[_ __.,_,q'-'/"""1'-"/__,p.=o'-'2:::..•.... 3:..-_,, Bruce A. Sweeten ("Affiant") being duly sworn, deposes and says: I. I am over 18 and I am the Chief Credit Officer of Comenity Capital Bank ("Seller"). In that capacity and as part of my regular job duties, I have custody ofcertain business records of Seller, routinely review such business records, and am familiar with Seller's processes for the sale and assignment ofaccounts and business records, including those that are maintained in electronic form. 2. Seller owns certain accounts, and maintains and records information in the records as they relate to such accounts. I am authorized to make the statements and representations set forth in this affidavit on behalf of Seller. The statements set forth herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, based on either personal knowledge or review ofthe business records ofthe Seller. If called upon as a witness, I can testify competently to the facts contained herein. 3. My regular job duties include having knowledge of, and access to, business records relating to the Accounts (as defined below). These records are kept by Seller in the regular course of business, and it was in the regular course of business of Seller, for an employee or representative with personal knowledge of the act, event, condition, or opinion recorded to make memorandum or records or to transmit information thereof to be included in such memorandum or records; and that the records were made at or near the time of the act and/or event recorded or reasonably soon thereafter. 4. On or about I/26/2023, Seller sold a pool of charged-off accounts (the "Accounts") by a Credit Card Account Purchase Agreement to Midland Credit Management, Inc. ("Buyer"). The original creditor at the time of charge-off was Comenity Capital Bank. 5. Pursuant to the sale, Seller sold, transferred, assigned, conveyed, granted, bargained, set over and delivered to Buyer and its successors and assigns, good and marketable title to the Accounts and any unpaid balance free and clear of any encumbrance, equity, lien, pledge, charge, claim or security interest. I am not aware of any errors in the Accounts. 6. In connection with the sale of the Accounts, electronic and other records were transferred to or otherwise made available to the Buyer (the "Transferred Records"). The Transferred Records have been kept in the regular course of Seller's business, and were made or compiled at or near the time of the event and recorded by (or from information transmitted by) a person (i)with knowledge of the data entered into and maintained in Seller's business records, or (ii) who caused the data to be entered into and maintained in Seller's business records. To the extent that the Transferred Records include records that were prepared by a third party, they are records that were incorporated into the records of Seller as a business record and the accuracy ofsuch records are relied upon by Seller in the regular course of business.7. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.Signed this _ _,_/_~_+ _ _day of March, 2023.Bruce A. Sweeten (AFFIANT NAME)Comenity Capital BankSubscribed and sworn to before me Jennifer Pardue, on this / ~f- (date) day ofMarch, inthe year 2023, by Bruce A. Sweeten, who proved on the basis ofsatisfactory evidence to be theperson whose name is subscribed to in this document. /) (Nota,y'sOfficial Seal) ~ ~~ Not Signature .,,r, JENNIFER PARDUE 1'• r,; Notary ?ublic • State 0f Lita~ Comm. No. 71884A My Commi5sf0n Exp! res on Jun 17, 202; CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITYSTATE OF UTAHCOUNTY OF SALT LAKEThe undersigned does hereby certify that she/he is an attorney at law duly admitted to practice inthe State of Utah and is a resident of Utah, County of Salt Lake, Utah; that she/he is a personduly qualified to make this certificate of conformity; that the foregoing acknowledgment byBruce A. Sweeten named in the foregoing instrument taken before Jennifer Pardue a notary inthe State of Utah duly conforms with the laws of the State of Utah, being the State in which itwas taken; and when executed by Mr. Sweeten in the manner indicated will qualify as a validand effective sworn statement in such state. 3/8/2023 ~~~Date Attorney at Law for the State of UtahField Field DataAccount Number 00 131Seller Account ID 5167First Name CELINALast Name COPELANDSSNDate of BirthAddress 1CityState - XXX-XX-7195 136 DOLPHIN WAY RIO LINDA CAZip 95673Open Date 08/28/2021Last Purchase Date 04/01 /2022Last Purchase Amount $46.24Last Payment Date 10/1 9/2022Last Payment Amount $284.00Sale Amount $2,210.23Charge Off Date 12/31/2022Charge off Balance $2,210.23Post Charge Off Interest $0.00Post Charge off Fee $0.00Post Charge off Payments $0.00Post Charge off Payments and Credits $0.00Post Charge off Credits $0.00Affinity ULTA BEAUTYAlternate Account #1 1287Alternate Account #2 7104Account information provided by Comenity Capital Bank pursuant to the Bill of Sale/Assignment of Accounts transferredon or about 01 /26/2023 in connection with the sale of accounts from Comenity Capital Bank to Midland CreditManagement, Inc.MCMG_CB_JAN_2023_ DPL_CCB. TXT; MCMG_CB_JAN_2023_ LCS_CCB. TXTEXHIBIT B PAGE 1 OF4 Summary of account act1v1ty Payment information Account no. ···· -····-·..·-1131 New balance $2,1 16.28 Minimum payment due $420.00 Previous balance +$2,026.26 Payment due date 12/12/2022 Payments -284.00 Late payment warning: Other credits -0.22 If we do not receive your minimum payment by 12/12/2022 you Purchases +0.00 may have to pay up to a $41 .00 late fee. Other debits +284.22 Cash advance +0.00 Minimum Payment Warning: If you make only the minimum Balance transfer +0.00 payment for each period, you will pay more in interest and it will Fees charged +41.00 take you longer to pay off your balance. For example: Interest char~ed +49.02 If you make no additional You will pay off And you will New balance +$2,116.28 charges using this c ard the balance shown end up paying an and each month you pay: on the statement estimated total Past due amount $350.00 in about: of: Credit limit $1,800.00 Only the minimum payment 8 years $4.379 Available credit $0.00 $89 3 years $3.192 Cash credit limit $0.00 (Savings = $ 1.187) Available cash $0.00 For 1nformat1on regarding credit counseling services. Statement closing date 11/17/2022 call 1-800· 284-1706. Days in billing cycle 30 Details of your transactions TRANS DATE TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/LOCATION AMOUNT 10/ 18/2022 PAYMENT - THANK YOU -284.00 10/18/2022 RETURNED PAYMENT 284.00 10/ 18/2022 •FINANCE CHARGE• PREV CYCLE PURCHASES -0.22 10/18/2022 •FINANCE CHARGE• PREV CYCLE PURCHASES 0.22 Fees 10/26/2022 RETURNED CHECK CHG 41.00 11/1212022 LATE FEE 41.00 10/26/2022 REFUND RETURN CK CHG -41.00.............................T.9.!~L..~~.E.~..F.g.~.!':!\~..F.'.E.~\C?.'?..................................................................................................... $41.00 .. Interest charged Interest Charge on Purchases $49.02 Interest Charge on Cash Advances $0.00 Total Interest For This Period $49.02 2022 totals year to date Total fees charged in 2022 $399.00 Total interest charged in 2022 $445.02 Interest charge calculation Your Annual Percentage Rate (APR) is the annual interest rate on your account. See BALANCE COMPUTATION METHOD on page 2 for more details. Minimum interest charge may exceed interest charge below, per your credit card agreement. TYPE OF BALANCE SUBJECT INTEREST BALANCE APR TO INTEREST RATE CHARGE Purchases 28.99% (v) 2,057.97 (DA) 49.02 Cash Advances 29.99% (v) 0.00 (DA) 0.00 NOTICE: See reverse side for important information. •• Ple°.:iSe tear at p·ertoration above • Account number New balance Minimum payment $2,116.28 I $420.00 □ Yes, I have moved or updated my Mailed payments must reach us e-mail address - see reverse. Amount enclosed: by 6pm ET on 1211212022. $ Please make check payable to: COMENITY - ULTAMATE REWARDS MASTERCARD 1II1 11 1111111111111 1111,11111 11 11 11 1111•I 1111 111 1I• 111111 •I II 1111 Please return this portion along with your payment to: CELINA COPELAND 136 DOLPHIN WAY PO Box 650964 RIO LINDA CA 95673-3213 Dallas TX 75265-0964 111111111111111 111 lll 1ll 111l 1l 11111111 1111 11111•111 111111111 11111 86230 47113 096 4 7131 00 0 042000 00021 1628----- Keep this portion for your records. PAYING INTEREST. Yoor due date is at l east 25 days after the close of each billing cycle. We will not charge you interest on purchases if you pay your- What To Do If You Think You Fjnd A Mj~r.ake On YourSr.atemenr entire balance by the due date each month. We will begin charging interest If you think there is an error on your statement, wrile lo us at: Comenity on balance transfers and cash advances on the transaction date. We will Capital Bank, PO Box 182620, Columbus, OH 43218-2620. begin to charge interest on new purchases made under a Low APR Equal In your letter, give us the following information: Payment or Budget Payment Credit Plan from the date of purchase. Account information: Your name and accounl number. BALANCE COMPUTATION METHOD. We calculate interest separately for DoJ!ar amount: The dollar amount of the suspected err°' each balance using the method(s) described below. The two letters in Description of Problem: If you think there is an error oo your bill, parentheses next to the Balance Subject to Interest Rate column in the describe what you believe is wrong and why you believe it is a Interest Charge Calculation section on this statement corresponds to the mistake. following: You must contact us within 60 days after the error appeared on your stiltement. You must notify us of <1ny potenti<:1I errors in ·,•mting. You m3y call (DA) We figure the interest charge on this balance by applying the periodic us, but if you do we are not required to investigate any potential errors and rate to the •daily balance• for each day in the billing period. To get the •daily you m<1y have to pay the amount in question balance· we take the beginning balance each day, add any new transactions While we investigate Whether or not there has been an error, the following are <1nd fees i!ind subtr.tct any payments or credits (treating .iny net credit true: balance as a zero balance). This gives us the daily balance. We cannot try to collect the amount in question, or report you as delinquent on that amount. CUSTOMER SERVICE. Vlsit The charge in question may remain on your statement, and we may COMENITY.NET/ULTAMATEREWARDSMASTERCARD or call continue to charge you interest on that amount. But, if we determine 1--866-257-9195 (TODITTY 1-SSS-819-1918). Send all Inquiries to: that we made a mistake. you will not have to pay the amount in CUSTOMER SERVICE, PO Box 183003, Columbus, OH 43218-3003. question or any interest or other fees rel.ited to that amount. While you do not have to pay the amount in question, you are TELEPHONE MONITORING. To provide you with high-qualit y service, phone responsible for the remc1inder of your balance communication with us i s monitored 3nd/or recorded We can apply any unpaid amounl against your credit limit. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. Abbreviations on your statement mean the Your Rlgnts If You Arc Dlssattsflc a wnn Your Crca;r Cara Purcnascs following: (v) means variable rate (this rate may vary); WV INT PAY RO If you are dissatisfied with the goods or services that you have purchased me3ns WAIV E INTEREST, PAYMENT REQUIRED; WV INT EQ PY means with your credit card, and you have tried in good faith to correct the problem WAIVE INTEREST, EQUAL PAYMENT; WV INT LOW PMT means WAIVE with lhe merchant, you may have the right not to pay the remaining amount INTEREST, LOW PAYMENT; OF INT PY RO means DEFER INTEREST, due on the purchase. PAYMENT REQUIRED: DEF INT EQ PY means DEFER INTEREST, EQUAL PAYMENT; OF INT LOW PMT means DEFER INTEREST, LOW PAYMENT To use this right, all of the following must be true: and LOW APR EQ PAY means LOW APR. EQUAL PAYMENT. You may pay 1. The purchase must have been made in your home state or within 100 all of your Account balance at any time without penalty. miles of your current mailing address. and the purchase price must have been more than $50. {Not~. Neither of these is necessary if your purchase NOTICE ABOUT ELECTRONIC CHECK CONVERSION, When you provide was based on an advertisem*nt we mailed to you, or if we own the company a check as payment. you authorize us either to use information from your that sold you the gOOds or services.) check to make a one-time electronic fund transfer horn your account or to 2. You must have used your credit card for the purchase. Purchases made process the payment as a check transaction. wilh cash advances from an ATM or with a check that accesses your credit PAYMENTS. Payments in U.S. dollars received by the applicable due date card account do not qualify. and cutoff time will be credited as of the date received. Mailed or overnighted 3. You must not yet have fully paid for the purchase. payments must also meet the requirements below. Otherwise, a payment may nol be credited f°' up to five days or may be rejected. This card is If all of the criteria above are met and you are still dissatisfied with the issued by Comenity Capital Bank pursuant to a license from Mastercard purchase, contact us in ·,•.1rifing at: Comenity Capital Bank. PO Box 182620, International Incorporated. Mastercard is a registered tr3demark of Columbus, OH 43218-2620 Mastercard lntemational Incorporated Mailing or Overnight (cutoff time 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET)): Whlle we lnvesllgate, the same rules apply to the disputed amount as Send a personal check, money order, traveler's check or cashier's discussed above. After we finish our investigation, we will tell you our check to the name and address on the payment stub (regular mail) or decision. At thal polnl, If we think you owe an amount and you do not pay we 3000 KeUway Drive, Suite 120, Carrollton, TX 75006 (overnight) may report you as delinquent. Include your payment stub, use the return envelope provided with your statemenl, write your account number on the check and send one CREDIT REPORTING. Wo may report information abou1 your account to payment with one payment stub. credit bureaus. Late payments. missed payments, or other defaults on your Do not staple or clip your payment to the stub, send any account may bo reflected in your credit report. correspondence with your payment or send cash or gift certificates. Pay By Phone (cutoff time 5:00 p.m. ET): Call us toll free at NOTICE OF CREDIT REPORT DISPUTES 1--866-257-9195(TOO/TTY 1-888-819-1918) lf you believe information we reported to a consumer reporting agency is Online (cutoff time 5:00 p.m. ET): Visit inaccurate, notify us at Comenity Capital Bank, PO Box 182120, Columbus, COMENITY .NET/ULTAMATEREWARDSMASTERCARD. OH 43218-2120. Please provide: Your name and account number Your address and telephone number What information you dispute and wh y you believe it is inaccurate If available, a copy of the section or the credit report showing the infonnation you are disputing Send all bankruptcy notices and related correspondence to Comenity Capltal Bank, Bankruptcy Department , PO Box 183043, Columbus, OH 43218-3043. PAYMENTS MARKED "PAID IN FULL". All written communications regarding disputed amounts that include any check or other payment instrument marked with ~payment in fun• or similar language, must be sent to: 3000 Kellway Drive. Suite 120. Carrollton, TX 75006. DO NOT USE THE ENCLOSED REMITTANCE ENVELOPE. - We may accept payment sent to any other address without losing any of our rights, New Inf ormation litle (optional) _ _ _ _ First Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ml _ _ _ __ Last Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Soc. Sec. No. _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Street Address _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Apt. No. _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ RR _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ PO Box _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ City St ate _ _ _ _ _ Zip Code _ _ __ Foreign Map Code _ _ __ Home Phone _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Work Phone _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Email Address - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PAGE3OF4Add1t1onal important messagesProtect yourself against mail and phone consumer fraud. http://about.usps.com/publications/pub281/welcome.htmThank you for enrolling in paperless statements. Please note that your account payment is past due and you willcontinue to receive a paper statement until your account is current. To change your paperless statement preferences,login to your account and select My Profile.IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT LATE FEE CREDITSWe may occasionally provide a credit for the amount, part or all, of a late fee charged to your account. If we do, we willcharge a fee of up to $41 .00 for any subsequent late payment. In addition, we may reverse the credit and repost thecharge to your account if you fail to make the minimum payment due on or before the due date in the next billing period.We would sincerely like to help you resolve this matter, yet our previous efforts to work with you have gone unanswered.This is your final opportunity. Unless we hear from you soon, we will permanently close your account and write it off as abad debt Your account will then be turned over to our Recovery team and reviewed by one of our Recovery Specialists.Visit Comenity EasyPay at comenity.neUeasypay to schedule your payment to bring your account up-to-date or call1-866-457-0401 (TDD/TTY 1-888-819-1918) to make a payment over the phone or discuss payment options. ------EXHIBIT C PAGE 1 OF4Summary of account act1v1ty Payment informationAccount no. ···· -····-·..·-1131 New balance $2,210.23 Minimum payment due $495.00Previous balance +$2,116.28 01/12/2023 ..Payment due date...Payments -0.00Other credits -0.00 Minimum Payment Warning: If you make only the minimum payment for each period, you will pay more in interest and it willPurchases +0.00Other debits +0.00 take you longer to pay off your balance. For example:Cash advance +0.00 If you make no additional You will pay off And you willBalance transfer +0.00 charges using this card the balance shown end up paying an and each month you pay: on the statement estimated totalFees charged +41 .00 in about: of:Interest char~ed +52.95 Only the minimum payment 8 years $4,521New balance +$2,210.23 $93 3 years $3,334Past due amount $420.00 (Savings= $ 1,187)Credit limit $1,800.00 For information regarding credit counseling services,Available credit $0.00 call 1-800-284-1706.Cash credit limit $0.00Available cash $0.00Statement closing date 12/18/2022Days in billing cycle 31Details of your transactionsTRANS DATE TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION/LOCATION AMOUNTFees12/ 12/2022 LATE FEE 41.00 _T.<>T.~l.-~1:.E.~__F.<>~.!':11~ PERIO[)_............................................... .................................................. $41.00 ..Interest charged Interest Charge on Purchases $52.95 Interest Charge on Cash Advances $0.00 Total Interest For This Period $52.95 2022 totals year to date Total fees charged in 2022 $440.00 Total interest charged in 2022 $497.97Interest charge calculationYour Annual Percentage Rate (APR) is the annual interest rate on your account. See BALANCE COMPUTATIONMETHOD on page 2 for more details. Minimum interest charge may exceed interest charge below, per your credit cardagreement.TYPE OF BALANCE SUBJECT INTERESTBALANCE APR TO INTEREST RATE CHARGEPurchases 28.99% (v) 2,150.96 (DA) 52.95Cash Advances 29.99% (v) 0.00 (DA) 0.00Add1t1onal important messagesProtect yourself against mail and phone consumer fraud. http://about.usps.com/publications/pub281/welcome.htm (CONTINUED) NOTICE: See reverse side for important information. •• Ple'.:iSe tear at p·ertoration above • Account number New balance Minimum payment $2,210.23 I $495.00 □ Yes, I have moved or updated my Mailed payments must reach us e-mail address - see reverse. Amount enclosed: by 6pm ET on 0111212023. $ Please make check payable to: COMENITY - ULTAMATE REWARDS MASTERCARD 111111l1111 11ll1l 111l1l1llll1l1llll1l1lll 1l11hlll,l1ilh1ll111 1I Please return this portion along with your payment to: CELINA COPELAND 136 DOLPHIN WAY
Related Contentin Sacramento County
Case
CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS, INC. vs WELDON, et al.
Aug 30, 2024 |Christopher E. Krueger |(Collections Case) |Limited Civil |24CV017339
Case
CAPITAL ONE, N.A. vs CONRAD, et al.
Aug 30, 2024 |Christopher E. Krueger |(Collections Case) |Limited Civil |24CV017290
Case
WESTLAKE SERVICES LLC vs PEREZ CASTILLO, et al.
Aug 28, 2024 |Christopher E. Krueger |(Collections Case) |Limited Civil |24CV017081
Case
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. vs CURRY
Aug 26, 2024 |Richard K. Sueyoshi |(Collections Case) |Limited Civil |24CV016932
Case
LVNV FUNDING LLC vs ARRINGTON
Aug 26, 2024 |Christopher E. Krueger |(Collections Case) |Limited Civil |24CV016837
Case
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC. vs GNEDASH
Aug 19, 2024 |Christopher E. Krueger |(Collections Case) |Limited Civil |24CV016821
Case
LVNV FUNDING LLC vs HUNT
Aug 30, 2024 |Christopher E. Krueger |(Collections Case) |Limited Civil |24CV017286
Case
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. vs HUBBARD
Aug 26, 2024 |Richard K. Sueyoshi |(Collections Case) |Limited Civil |24CV016985
Ruling
IN THE MATTER OF: J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC
Aug 27, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Other Civil Petition) |24CV010770
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV010770: IN THE MATTER OF: J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC 08/28/2024 Hearing on Petition For Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights in Department 54Tentative RulingThe First Amended Verified Petition for approval for transfer of payment rights by andbetween Roman Yslas (“the Payee”) and J.G. Wentworth Originations, LLC(“Petitioner”), pursuant to California Insurance Code sections 10134, et seq. isUNOPPOSED and GRANTED.Payee seeks to transfer a payment of $59,000.00 from a future structured settlementpayment due on April 2, 2028, in exchange for a purchase price of $30,284.39. Thefuture payment has a discounted present value equal to $48,442.41. The purchaseprice to be paid to Payee was calculated using a discount rate of 19.47%.Payee is 26 years old. He is not married, and he does not have any children. He worksas an EMT, working approximately 40 hours a week at the rate of $21.00 per hour. Hedoes not have any court-ordered child support obligations. The subject settlementoccurred in 2003 and resulted from a wrongful death claim. (Am. Decl. of Payee ISOPet. ¶¶ 4, 8.)Payee declares that when the original settlement was completed, the future paymentthat is the subject of this petition was not intended to pay for future medical care andtreatment related to the incident that was the subject of the settlement or necessaryliving expenses. (Am. Decl. of Payee ISO Pet. ¶¶ 6, 7.)Payee had one previous transfer of a structured settlement payment approved inFebruary 2024,[1] in which he transferred a future payment of $45,000.00 in exchangefor $23,000. In support of that transfer, Payee explained that he intended to use thefunds to purchase vending machines and start a business. The current petition does notindicate if Payee did so.If the current petition is approved, Payee avers: I will use the money received from the proposed settlement to pay off high interest credit cards that I have. By doing this it will minimize the interest and even avoid interest charges. This will improve my credit score. With my credit score improving, this can make it easier to qualify for better interest Page 1 of 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV010770: IN THE MATTER OF: J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC 08/28/2024 Hearing on Petition For Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights in Department 54 rates and other loans, such as mortgages in the future. The less debt I have, the more flexibility I will have for my budget. I can continue to invest in my business in e-commerce. Which in the long run will bring me more passive income.(Am. Decl. of Payee ISO Pet. ¶ 11.)The Court finds under Insurance Code section 10139.5 that the proposed sale is: (1) Is in the best interest of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of the payee’s dependents. (2) The payee has been advised in writing by the transferee to seek independent professional advice regarding the transfer and has either received that advice or knowingly waived, in writing, the opportunity to receive the advice. (3) The transferee has complied with the notification requirements set forth in Insurance Code section 10139.5, subdivision (f)(2); the transferee has provided the payee with a disclosure form that complies with Insurance Code section 10136; and the transfer agreement complies with Insurance Code sections 10136 and 10138. (4) The transfer does not contravene any applicable statute or the order of any court or other government authority. (5) The payee understands the terms of the transfer agreement, including the terms set forth in the disclosure statement required by Insurance Code section 10136. (6) The payee understands and does not wish to exercise the payee’s right to cancel the transfer agreement.Accordingly, the petition is granted. Petitioner shall submit a formal order for the Court'ssignature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312. Page 2 of 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV010770: IN THE MATTER OF: J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC 08/28/2024 Hearing on Petition For Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights in Department 54[1] The previous petition was filed in the Sacramento County Superior Court, CaseNo. 23CV011934.NOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on thiscalendar must comply with the following procedure:To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law andMotion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before thehearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requestingparty shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oralargument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument;and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and thatopposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If norequest for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely eithertelephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with noticeto the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Althoughremote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely fornon-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NOCOURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporterservices at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules ofCourt, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy forOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website athttps://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved OfficialReporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to besigned by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using areporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver Page 3 of 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV010770: IN THE MATTER OF: J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS, LLC 08/28/2024 Hearing on Petition For Approval for Transfer of Payment Rights in Department 54and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party witha Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearingor at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerkwill forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. Page 4 of 4
Ruling
BARNETT vs RAY, et al.
Aug 26, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Other Commercial/Business Tor...) |24CV005182
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV005182: BARNETT vs RAY, et al. 08/27/2024 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Department 54Tentative RulingDefendants Angelina Ray and Pacem Tempestate law, APC’s (collectively,“Defendants”) demurrer to plaintiff in pro per Roberta Barnett’s (“Plaintiff”) FirstAmended Complaint (“1AC”) is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.Defendants’ request for judicial notice of the online docket for Plaintiff’s underlyingemployment case, Barnett v. CA DMV, et al., U.S. District Court for the Eastern Districtof California, Case No. 2:17-cv-01517-TLN-CKD is GRANTED. In taking judicial noticeof these documents, the Court accepts the fact of their existence, not the truth of theircontents. (See Professional Engineers v. Dep’t of Transp. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 543, 590[judicial notice of findings of fact does not mean that those findings of fact are true];Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 112, 120-121[“[W]hile the existence of any document in a court file may be judicially noticed, the truthof the matters asserted in those documents, including the factual findings of the judgewho was sitting as the trier of fact, is not entitled to notice.”].)Plaintiff filed her Complaint in this action on March 18, 2024, and the operative 1AC onApril 5, 2024. The 1AC alleges causes of action for legal malpractice, breach ofcontract, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and “statutory” legalmalpractice against Defendants arising from their representation of Plaintiff in anunderlying employment action. Plaintiff alleges Defendants removed defendants andcauses of action from the underlying lawsuit without Plaintiff’s consent and failed toinvestigate.Defendants demur to the first and fourth causes of action on the ground Plaintiff fails toallege she suffered actual loss or damage from the alleged malpractice. Defendantsdemur to the second cause of action for breach of contract on the ground Plaintiff failsto allege actual or compensable harm from the breach and fails to allege whether thecontract is oral, written, or implied. Defendants demur to the third cause of action on theground Plaintiff fails to allege outrageous conduct or that Defendants acted with theintent to cause harm or that she suffered severe emotional distress.Legal StandardThe function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the pleading it challenges byraising questions of law. (Salimi v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 216,219; Nordlinger v. Lynch (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1271.) A demurrer “tests thepleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.” (SKF Farms v.Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) Extrinsic evidence may not properlybe considered on demurrer or on a motion to strike. (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson Page 1 of 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV005182: BARNETT vs RAY, et al. 08/27/2024 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Department 54(1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881; Hibernia Savings & Loan Soc. v. Thornton (1897) 117Cal. 481, 482.)For the purpose of determining the effect of a complaint, its allegations are liberallyconstrued, with a view toward substantial justice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 452; Amarel v.Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140-141; Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title GuarantyCo. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 43, fn. 7.) In this respect, the Court treats the demurrer asadmitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions orconclusions of fact or law, and considers matters which may be judicially noticed. (Blankv. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland LaneEstates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1111-1112.)A demurrer may be sustained only if the complaint lacks any sufficient allegations toentitle the plaintiff to relief. (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189Cal.App.3d 764, 778.) “Plaintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled tosome relief . . . , we are not concerned with plaintiff’s possible inability or difficulty inproving the allegations of the complaint.” (Highlanders, Inc. v. Olsan (1978) 77Cal.App.3d 690, 696-697.) The sole issue raised by a general demurrer is whether thefacts pled state a valid cause of action, not whether they are true. (Serrano v. Priest(1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.)First and Fourth Causes of Action for Legal MalpracticeThe elements of a cause of action for professional negligence are (1) the duty of theprofessional to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as other members of his or herprofession commonly possess and exercise; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximatecausal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actualloss or damage resulting from the professional’s negligence. (Burgess v. Superior Court(1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1077.)Actual loss or damage resulting from an attorney’s negligence is a requisite element toany legal malpractice action. (Budd v. Nixen (1971) 6 Cal.3d 195, 200 [superseded bystatute].) As in other negligence actions, an attorney who fails to exercise due care inthe handling of his client’s case, is liable only for “damages directly and proximatelycaused by his negligence.” (Garretson v. Miller (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 563, 571;Thompson v. Halvonik (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 657 [No malpractice absent appreciableand actual harm proximately caused by attorney’s negligence.].) “The mere breach of aprofessional duty, causing only nominal damages, speculative harm, or the threat offuture harm--not yet realized--does not suffice to create a cause of action fornegligence.” (Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1998) 18Cal.4th 739, 749–750.) Page 2 of 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV005182: BARNETT vs RAY, et al. 08/27/2024 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Department 54Defendants contend Plaintiff’s claims for legal malpractice fail because she has failed toallege she suffered actual loss or damage and, further, Plaintiff has not yet suffered anyloss or damage because her underlying lawsuit is still active as shown by the onlinedocket. Indeed, nowhere in the 1AC does Plaintiff allege she has suffered actual loss ordamage in her underlying case due to Defendants’ alleged malpractice.Plaintiff’s opposition is not a model of clarity, but she appears to argue in a conclusoryfashion that “had it not been for the attorney’s breach, she would’ve had a betteroutcome.” (Opposition at p. 16.) Plaintiff does not address Defendants’ argument thatshe has not sufficiently alleged actual loss or damage, nor can she at this point,because the underlying case is still pending. At this point, Plaintiff purports to allege apotential injury, which does not equate with actual injury. Accordingly, the demurrer tothe first and fourth causes of action is SUSTAINED. While the Court questions whetherPlaintiff can amend to cure the defect at this time, leave to amend is granted as this isDefendants’ first challenge to the pleading.Second Cause of Action for Breach of ContractTo establish a claim for breach of contract, Plaintiff must allege: (1) the existence of thecontract, (2) Plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) Defendants’breach, and (4) the resulting damage to Plaintiff.”(Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman(2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.) Further, in order to plead a breach of contract cause ofaction, the plaintiff may either attach a copy of the agreement, set forth the materialterms verbatim or plead the legal effect of the agreement. (Construction ProtectiveServices, Inc. v. TIG Specialty Insurance Co. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 189, 198-199.) In orderto plead a contract by its legal effect, plaintiff must “allege the substance of its relevantterms. This is more difficult, for it requires a careful analysis of the instrument,comprehensiveness in statement, and avoidance of legal conclusions.” (McKell v.Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1489.)Defendants argue Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract fails because Plaintiff has notalleged actual or compensable harm arising from any breach and she has failed toallege whether the contract is oral, written, or implied.Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract appears to be based upon the same conductsupporting her claims for legal malpractice. However, like with her legal malpracticeclaims, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege compensable harm or damage resultingfrom Defendants’ alleged breach of contract. Further, the 1AC does not allege whetherthe contract is oral, written, or implied, does not sufficiently allege the terms of thecontract, and no contract is attached. Plaintiff does not raise any arguments in her Page 3 of 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV005182: BARNETT vs RAY, et al. 08/27/2024 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Department 54opposition to contradict the foregoing.Accordingly, the demurrer to the second cause of action is SUSTAINED, but with leaveto amend as this is Defendants’ first challenge to the pleading.Third Cause of Action for Intentional / Negligent Infliction of Emotional DistressThe established elements of a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress arethat a plaintiff must identify facts demonstrating that “(1) the defendant engaged inextreme and outrageous conduct with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard ofthe probability of causing, severe emotional distress to the plaintiff; (2) the plaintiffactually suffered severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) the outrageous conductwas the actual and proximate cause of the emotional distress.” (Ross v. Creel Printing &Publ’g Co. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 736, 744-45.) The conduct at issue “must be soextreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized society.” (Trericev. Blue Cross of California (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 878, 883.)Defendants contend Plaintiff fails to allege any outrageous conduct, fails to allegeDefendants acted with the intent to cause her harm, and fails to allege she sufferedsevere emotional distress. Further, Defendants argue there is no separate tort fornegligent infliction of emotional distress.Plaintiff argues in opposition that she adequately alleged a cause of action forintentional infliction of emotional distress. (Opposition at p. 22.)Having reviewed the 1AC, the Court agrees Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allegeconduct that can be deemed outrageous. Plaintiff alleges Defendants engaged in legalmalpractice when they “removed names and causes of action” without her consent.(1AC ¶¶ 21, 46, 84.) These allegations are vague and conclusory and they do notconstitute conduct that “exceeds all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilizedcommunity.” (Trerice, supra, 209 Cal.App.3d at 883.)Further, there is no independent tort of “negligent infliction of emotional distress”(“NIED”). (See, e.g., Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 984-985.) NIED is a species of negligence predicated upon the traditional elements of duty,breach, cause and harm. (See id. at 984.) Plaintiff has already alleged causes of actionfor professional negligence. Accordingly, the cause of action for NIED is meresurplusage.The demurrer to the third cause of action is SUSTAINED, but with leave to amend asthis is Defendants’ first challenge to the pleading. Page 4 of 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV005182: BARNETT vs RAY, et al. 08/27/2024 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Department 54ConclusionDefendants’ demurrer to the 1AC is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint (“2AC”) no later than September 10,2024. Although not required by statute or court rule, Plaintiff is directed to present theclerk a copy of this ruling at the time of filing the 2AC.Defendants may file and serve a response within 30 days of service of the 2AC, 35 daysif served by mail.This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule3.1312 or other notice is required.NOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must complywith the following procedure:To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral ArgumentRequest Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At thetime of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves asthe party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oralargument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing partymay appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made,the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by videoconference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties inaccordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court willpresume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link ishttps://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALLAPPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their ownexpense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements forrequesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the SacramentoSuperior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Temporeavailable at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.PdfA Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party,the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Page 5 of 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV005182: BARNETT vs RAY, et al. 08/27/2024 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Department 54Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests acourt reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and itmust be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an officialreporter will be provided. Page 6 of 6
Ruling
David Stewart vs. Randy Bickford
Aug 27, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Other Complaint (non-tort/non...) |34-2020-00282610-CU-MC-GDS
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2020-00282610-CU-MC-GDS: David Stewart vs. Randy Bickford 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Quash Plaintiffs' Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records in Department 54Tentative RulingDefendant Expert Microsystems, Inc.’s (“Expert Microsystems”) motion to quash depositionsubpoenas is DENIED as follows.This action arises from a purported breach of a joint venture agreement between DefendantRandy Bickford (“Bickford”) and Plaintiff David Stewart (“Stewart”) that resulted in thecreation of three companies: (1) Plaintiff Decision Detective Corporation (ownedprimarily by Stewart), (2) Expert Microsystems (owned primarily by Bickford), and (3)Defendant Intellectual Assets LLC (“Intellectual Assets”) (jointly owned). The jointventure involved the development and sale of software technology. Plaintiffs allege thatBickford, without the knowledge or consent of Stewart, transferred valuable intellectualproperty rights from Intellectual Assets to Expert Microsystems. Plaintiffs filed theiroperative Third Amended Complaint (“3AC”) on June 28, 2021, alleging causes ofaction for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of operating agreement, breach of jointventure agreement, fraudulent non-disclosure, interference with economic advantage,unfair business practices, and conversion. Trial is scheduled for January 21, 2025.On May 15, 2024, Plaintiffs issued deposition subpoenas for the production of business recordson eight of Expert Microsystems’ customers/potential customers (collectively the “Subpoenas”).Expert Microsystems moves to quash the Subpoenas under Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”)section 1987.1 on the grounds that they (1) were not properly served on out-of-state businessesas required by CCP section 2026.010, and (2) are otherwise unjustified, burdensome, harassing,and oppressive. In the alternative, Expert Microsystems seeks a protective order limiting theSubpoenas’ scope. Expert Microsystems also requests $2,392.00 in monetary sanctions.Plaintiffs oppose the motion, rejoining, inter alia, that they have withdrawn the Subpoenas indispute; “Thus, there are no longer any operative subpoenas at issue.” (Opp’n 4:7-8.) Plaintiffs’counsel filed a declaration in support of their opposition, in which he avers: 6. On May 15, 2024, Plaintiffs attempted to serve [the Subpoenas]. Plaintiffs were unable to serve Mitsubishi Corporation Americas. . . . .... 8. On August 14, 2024, I contacted [Expert Microsystems’] counsel to inform him that Plaintiffs would withdraw the Subpoenas, and asked if [they] would withdraw their Motion. In response, Defendant[’s] counsel asked if I would represent not to re-issue the Subpoenas to any of the Deponents — a representation I could not make. Defendants’ counsel represented Page 1 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2020-00282610-CU-MC-GDS: David Stewart vs. Randy Bickford 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Quash Plaintiffs' Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records in Department 54 that he may still be willing to withdraw the Motion even if I could not represent to not re-issue the Subpoenas — but that he would need to think about it. I did not receive confirmation whether Defendants had withdrawn their Motion by the time of this Declaration. . . . 9. On August 15, 2024, my office sent Deponents each a letter, with the exception of Mitsubishi because it was never served, to indicate that Plaintiffs were withdrawing the Subpoenas. ...(Decl. of John Ternieden ISO Opp’n ¶¶ 6-9.) The August 15, 2024 letters are attached as ExhibitD to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration. (Id. at ¶ 9, Ex. D.) Each of the letters is one paragraph longand concludes with the bolded sentence: “Please take this letter as formal notice thatPlaintiffs are withdrawing the attached Subpoena.” (Ibid. [emphasis in original].)As Plaintiffs have withdrawn the Subpoenas, Expert Microsystems’ motion to quash is denied asmoot. Expert Microsystems’ alternative request for a protective order is similarly denied as mootsince the request concerns the scope of the Subpoenas.Expert Microsystems’ request for monetary sanctions is denied.This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (CodeCiv. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)NOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on thiscalendar must comply with the following procedure:To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law andMotion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before thehearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requestingparty shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oralargument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument;and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and thatopposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If norequest for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely eithertelephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice Page 2 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2020-00282610-CU-MC-GDS: David Stewart vs. Randy Bickford 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Quash Plaintiffs' Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records in Department 54to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Althoughremote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely fornon-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NOCOURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporterservices at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules ofCourt, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy forOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website athttps://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved OfficialReporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to besigned by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using areporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiverand requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party witha Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearingor at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerkwill forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. Page 3 of 3
Ruling
RUNFOLA vs BRADLEY, et al.
Aug 27, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Other Personal Injury/Propert...) |24CV010034
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV010034: RUNFOLA vs BRADLEY, et al. 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Strike Punitive Damages Allegations in Department 53Tentative RulingNOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must complywith the following procedure:To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral ArgumentRequest Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At thetime of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves asthe party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oralargument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing partymay appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made,the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by videoconference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties inaccordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court willpresume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link ishttps://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALLAPPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their ownexpense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements forrequesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the SacramentoSuperior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Temporeavailable at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf.A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party,the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s ApprovedOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore list, Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for CourtReporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to thehearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will beforward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.TENTATIVE RULING:The notice of motion to strike punitive damages allegations does not provide notice of theCourt’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06, and does not provide the correctaddress for this Court’s Dept. 53/54. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing party andadvise opposing party of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and themanner to request a hearing, along with the correct address for this Court’s Dept. 53/54. Ifmoving counsel is unable to contact opposing party prior to the hearing, moving counsel isordered to appear at the hearing in person, by Zoom or by telephone.The notice of motion also does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure §1010 or CRC Rule3.1110(a), requiring the moving parties to state the grounds for the motion presented.The Court finds that this motion to strike punitive damages allegations is supported by neither amemorandum of points and authorities nor a declaration in conformity with Code of Civil Page 1 of 2 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV010034: RUNFOLA vs BRADLEY, et al. 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Strike Punitive Damages Allegations in Department 53Procedure §435.5.Similarly, while defendants have filed both a memorandum of points and authorities in supportof a demurrer and a declaration in conformity with Code of Civil Procedure §430.41, the Courtfinds neither a demurrer nor a notice of hearing on demurrer currently on file.Regardless, the present motion to strike punitive damages from the complaint is DROPPED fromthe calendar since defendants filed on 7/23/2024 a motion for change of venue, currently set tobe heard on 9/13/2024, and the filing of a motion to change venue operates to automatically stayall proceedings before this Court until the venue motion is heard and decided. (South Sutter, LLCv. LJ Sutter Partners, LP (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 634, 655 (citing Pickwick Stages System v.Superior Court (1934) 138 Cal.App. 448, 449).)Defendants may re-notice the present motion to strike to be heard in this department (byfollowing the applicable reservation procedure) if and when the pending motion for change ofvenue is denied. In the event the change of venue is granted, defendants may in a timely mannerre-notice the present motion to strike upon confirmation that the court file has been received bythe Superior Court of the county to which this action is transferred.Moving counsel to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same no laterthan 9/4/2024.This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (CodeCiv. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.) Page 2 of 2
Ruling
Chelsea Sexson vs. CFM Equipment Distributors, Inc.
Aug 26, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Civil Rights/Discrimination) |34-2022-00331692-CU-CR-GDS
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2022-00331692-CU-CR-GDS: Chelsea Sexson vs. CFM Equipment Distributors, Inc. 08/27/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Demand for Inspection-Set Three in Department 54Tentative RulingPlaintiff in pro per Chelsea Sexson’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel defendant CFMEquipment Distributors, Inc. (“Defendant”) to serve verified further responses toPlaintiff’s Demand for Inspection, Set Three, request number 4, is DENIED.Plaintiff filed this employment action on December 21, 2022. The operative SecondAmended Complaint (“2AC”) was filed on December 15, 2023, and alleges 41 counts.This action is primarily a wage and hour action, but Plaintiff also alleges numerous otherclaims, including, but not limited to, disability discrimination, defamation, breach ofcontract, a CFRA violation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.Plaintiff served her Demand for Inspection, Set Three, on March 4, 2024.Request number 4 asks for “Profit and Loss statements of Defendant for each year ofPlaintiffs [sic] employment relationship with Defendant.”Defendant served responses on April 2, 2024, and supplemental responses on April 16,2024. Defendant’s supplemental response states: “Objection. This request seeks documents which are irrelevant to the subject matter of this action and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. To the extent that the documents requested go to issues of potential punitive damages, this request is premature and barred pursuant to Civil Code § 3295(d).”Defendant notes in its opposition that it’s reference to subdivision (d) was atypographical error and the reference should be to subdivision (c).Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s response is incomplete and evasive. Plaintiff’sarguments for compelling a further response appear only in her separate statement.Plaintiff cites to the broad scope of relevance in discovery and the liberal policiesunderlying discovery procedures and argues the request seeks relevant informationbecause she was employed as a purchasing manager with Defendant and had thepower to “directly impact” Defendant’s gross profits. Thus, she concludes Defendant’sprofitability goes directly towards the issue of whether she was wrongfully terminated.Defendant opposes on the ground that Civil Code sections 3294 and 3295 governbecause Plaintiff’s 2AC seeks punitive damages.Civil Code section 3295(c) provides: “No pretrial discovery by the plaintiff shall be Page 1 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2022-00331692-CU-CR-GDS: Chelsea Sexson vs. CFM Equipment Distributors, Inc. 08/27/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Demand for Inspection-Set Three in Department 54permitted with respect to the evidence [of (2) the financial condition of the defendant]unless the court enters an order permitting such discovery pursuant to this subdivision.... Upon motion by the plaintiff supported by appropriate affidavits and after ahearing, if the court deems a hearing to be necessary, the court may at any time enteran order permitting the discovery otherwise prohibited by this subdivision if the courtfinds, on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented, that theplaintiff has established that there is a substantial probability that the plaintiff willprevail on the claim pursuant to Section 3294.” (emphasis added.)Defendant contends the request seeks the exact kind of “financial condition” discoverybarred by section 3295(c) without a court order. In the alternative, Defendant alsoargues the information sought is irrelevant because Defendant’s profitability has nothingto do with whether Defendant is liable for any employment-related offense as alleged inthe 2AC.The Court agrees that the request seeks discovery regarding Defendant’s financialcondition, which is governed by section 3295(c), and therefore not permissible without acourt order. Indeed, “[s]ection 3295 was enacted ... to protect defendants from thepremature disclosure of their financial condition when punitive damages are sought.”(Medo v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 64, 67.) Even if section 3295(c) did notgovern, the Court is not persuaded the information sought is relevant to Plaintiff’sclaims. Plaintiff’s argument that she influenced Defendant’s profits as a PurchasingManager and, therefore, if Defendant was profitable, the information would tend to showshe was wrongfully terminated, is tenuous and not persuasive.Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED given the outcome of this motion.Further, a plaintiff in pro per is not entitled to recover attorney’s fees for their own timespent on litigation. (See Witte v. Kaufman (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1201; Trope v. Katz(1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 292.)Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff is DENIED as Defendantfails to cite to any legal authority in support of the request.The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rulesof Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.NOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must complywith the following procedure: Page 2 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2022-00331692-CU-CR-GDS: Chelsea Sexson vs. CFM Equipment Distributors, Inc. 08/27/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Demand for Inspection-Set Three in Department 54To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral ArgumentRequest Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At thetime of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves asthe party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oralargument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing partymay appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made,the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by videoconference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties inaccordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court willpresume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link ishttps://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALLAPPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their ownexpense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements forrequesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the SacramentoSuperior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Temporeavailable at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.PdfA Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party,the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s ApprovedOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore list.Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests acourt reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and itmust be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an officialreporter will be provided. Page 3 of 3
Ruling
34-2021-00306042-CU-MC-GDS
Aug 27, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Other Complaint (non-tort/non...) |34-2021-00306042-CU-MC-GDS
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00306042-CU-MC-GDS: Medfin Manager, LLC vs. County of Sacramento 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54Tentative RulingPlaintiff Medfin Manager, LLC’s (“Medfin”) motion for an order compelling Defendant Countyof Sacramento (“County”) to serve an amended privilege log is DENIED, as follows.Medfin’s request for judicial notice is unopposed and granted.Factual and Procedural Background[1]This action arises out of Medfin’s claim that the County erroneously and negligently disbursedrestitution amounts owed to it to the wrong party. The restitution was ordered against TimothyHessler, a now disbarred attorney (“Hessler”).Prior to April 21, 2008, the State Bar of California (“State Bar”) opened a disciplinaryinvestigation into Hessler. (D&O at p. 2.). On or about April 21, 2008, the State Bar ofCalifornia, Office of the Chief Trial Counsel, filed a Notice of Disciplinary Charges against him.(Ibid.) In January 19, 2011, the California Supreme Court declined to accept Hessler’s voluntaryresignation and ordered the disciplinary matter to proceed. (Ibid.) The matter was submitted onMarch 28, 2011, and Hessler was ultimately disbarred. (Ibid.) The State Bar further orderedHessler to pay restitution in the amount of $187,200 plus interest to MedFin. (Id. at p. 17.)On or about June 17, 2011, during its investigation into Hessler, the State Bar sent a personal andconfidential notice to the Sacramento County District Attorney (“DA”) pursuant to Business andProfessions Code section 6044.5 (“Notice”). (Decl. of Blake P. Sequeira ISO Opp’n (“SequeiraDecl.”) ¶ 5, Ex. B.)Business and Professions Code section 6044.5 provides in pertinent part: When an investigation or formal proceeding concerns alleged misconduct which may subject a licensee to criminal prosecution for any felony, or any lesser crime committed during the course of the practice of law, or in any manner that the client of the licensee was a victim, or may subject the licensee to disciplinary charges in another jurisdiction, the State Bar shall disclose, in confidence, information not otherwise public under this chapter to the appropriate agency responsible for criminal or disciplinary enforcement or exchange that information with that agency.(Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6044.5, subd. (a) [emphasis added].)The Notice stated that Hessler was the subject of multiple complaints of misconduct that maysubject him to criminal charges. (Sequeira Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. B.) At an unknown date, the State Bar Page 1 of 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00306042-CU-MC-GDS: Medfin Manager, LLC vs. County of Sacramento 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54provided a record of approximately 2,475 pages to the DA, pursuant to Business andProfessions Code section 6044.5, for its evaluation of potential criminal charges.(Sequeira Decl. ¶ 6.) The documents contained 27 individual “tabs” each appearing tocorrelate to a different complainant, including prior clients of Hessler, Judicial Officers,and third-party individuals not relevant to this action. (Ibid.)Through its own statutory authority, and pursuant to its own investigation, on or about March 1,2012, the DA filed a criminal complaint against Hessler in the Superior Court ofCalifornia, County of Sacramento (“Superior Court”) under case 12F01435. (SequeiraDecl. ¶ 7, Ex. C.) In the criminal complaint, the DA alleged Hessler committed a felonyviolation of Penal Code section 508 against a single victim, Amanda Whiseant. (Ibid.)On or about June 1, 2012, the Superior Court issued a restitution order against Hessler in thecriminal case. (Sequeira Decl. ¶ 8, Exs. D-E.) A Disposition Notice was sent to the SacramentoCounty Department of Revenue Recovery (“DRR”) for collections pursuant to an agreementbetween the Superior Court and the County. (Sequeira Decl. ¶¶ 8-10, Exs. D-E.) Despite allegingonly one victim in the underlying criminal complaint, the Disposition Notice included numerousnames with different amounts listed for each for each individual, totaling $176,073.00. (Ibid.)One of the listed names was 'Curtis Thordsen/Medfin' in the amount of $137,200. (SequeiraDecl. ¶ 9-10, Exs. D-E.)Over the course of the next few years, Hessler made payments to the DRR towards his criminalrestitution balance. (Sequeira Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. F.) Status conferences were held in the underlyingcriminal case to confirm payments were received. On April 13, 2017, the Superior Court issued aMinute Order instructing “DRR to disburse monies to victims w/in 2 weeks.” (Sequeira Decl.¶ 12, Ex. G.) On April 25, 2017, the County issued a payment to “Curtis Thorsden” inthe amount of $137,200.00. (Sequeira Decl. ¶ 13, Ex. H.)On May 15, 2017, the Superior Court entered judgment and sentencing against Hessler, andgranted Hessler’s motion to reduce the charges to a misdemeanor pursuant to PenalCode section 17(b). (Sequeira Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. G.) The criminal case concluded. (Ibid.)On August 10, 2021, Medfin filed the Complaint in this action. On October 10, 2023, Medfinserved the County with a Request for Production of Documents, Set Three (“RPFs”).(Decl. of Christopher O. Holleran ISO Mot. (“Holleran Decl.”) ¶ 3, Ex. A.) The RFPsincluded nine requests for production; the following two are relevant to this motion: 24) Any and all DOCUMENTS provided to the SACRAMENTO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY by the CALIFORNIA STATE BAR in connection with the HESSLER MATTER, during the RELEVANT PERIOD. Page 2 of 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00306042-CU-MC-GDS: Medfin Manager, LLC vs. County of Sacramento 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54 25) Any and all COMMUNICATIONS between the SACRAMENTO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY and the CALIFORNIA STATE BAR in connection with the HESSLER MATTER, during the RELEVANT PERIOD.(Id. at pp. 4-5.) On December 21, 2023, the County served responses to the RFPs. (HolleranDecl. ¶ 4, Ex. B.) As a result of meet and confer efforts that followed, the parties agreed theCounty would provide a privilege log in lieu of the production and release of the requesteddocuments. (Holleran Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. C.) On March 18, 2024, the County served Plaintiff withsaid privilege log. (Holleran Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. D.)The privilege log stated: As you are aware, the State Bar of California conducted an investigation into Timothy W. Hessler (Disbarred SB#231689). As a result of the investigation, approximately 2475 pages were sent to the Sacramento County District Attorney on or about June 17, 2011, pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6044.5 et. al. The documents were sent by “F. Jacobs, Special Investigator [for The State Bar of California]” to Michael Blazina, Sacramento County DA Head of Special Investigations. The document packet contains twenty-seven (27) tabbed exhibits with extra exhibits that appear to be sub-exhibits. Each tab appears to correlate to a complainant against Timothy Hessler. The following are files included in the packet, with document dates between September 2007 and June 2011: Tab 1: 07-o-14374 Peters Tab 2: 08-o-12537 SBI (Hon. Burger-Plavan) Tab 3: 07-o-14322 Hon. Parker 08-o-11053 Hon. Parker Tab 4: 08-o-13111 Hovious Tab 5: 08-o-10538 Sacharko Tab 6: 08-o-13083 Cetti Tab 7: 08-o-11112 Robert Tab 8: 08-o-12694 Duni Tab 9: 08-o-12329 Wakefield Tab 10: 08-o-12896 Medina Tab 11: 08-o-13896 White 07-o-14975 White Tab 12: 07-o-14374 Peters Tab 13: 08-o-11822 Nesbitt Page 3 of 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00306042-CU-MC-GDS: Medfin Manager, LLC vs. County of Sacramento 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54 Tab 14: 08-o-11879 Dexter Tab 15: 08-o-12660 Nguyen Tab 16: 07-o-14975 White Tab 17: 08-o-10374 Vu Tab 18: 07-o-14172 Griffin Tab 19: 07-o-14659 Wadum Tab 20: 09-o-12090 Whiseant Tab 21: 08-o-13437 Le Tab 22: 08-o-13436 Burke Tab 23: 08-o-11993 Cowsert Tab 24: 08-o-12173 Puccio Tab 25: 07-o-13650 Valinoti Tab 26: 07-o-14322 Thorsden Tab 27: 07-o-14560 Hon. Parker Each tab contains various documents including, but not limited to, statements made by the witnesses to the State Bar investigators, documents pertaining to the complainant(s) case including financial, medical, and familial records, and miscellaneous judicial documents. Respondent asserts that it is not authorized to release the aforementioned documents without a waiver of confidentiality from the Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California (Business and Professions Code sections 6044.5 and 6086.1; see also California State Bar Rules of Procedure rule 2302). Further, the records contain nonpublic court records which are confidential pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 6090.6. (See also section 6044.5). Additionally, the records contain documents that are subject to privilege under the attorney client doctrine (see California State Bar Rule 1.6; see also Business and Professions Code section 6068(e) and section 6103.) Last, the records contain medical records that are subject to Federal and State confidentiality laws requiring patient notice prior to release. (42 U.S. Code section 1320d).(Ibid.)Medfin filed the instant motion in response.Discussion Page 4 of 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00306042-CU-MC-GDS: Medfin Manager, LLC vs. County of Sacramento 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54Medfin moves for an order compelling the County “to serve an amended, complete, and code-compliant privilege log” on the grounds that the privilege log provided is “woefully inadequate.(Am. Not. of Mot. 2:1-6.) Medfin argues that the Court “has the power to compel amended andcomplete privilege logs[,]” and the County’s privilege log “do[es] not provide the level of detailrequired by the [Code of Civil Procedure] and California case law.” (Mem. of P.&A. ISO Mot.6:5-9, 7:12-15.) Medfin also seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,810.00. (Am. Not. ofMot. 2:14-16.)The County opposes the motion, rejoining that the privilege log is sufficiently detailed under thecirc*mstances as the additional detail sought by Medfin “would require disclosure of informationobtained in confidence from the [State Bar] and is privileged.” (Opp’n 7:5-10.) The Countystates: Disclosure of any documentation or records pertaining to the State Bar’s investigation may be in violation of Business and Professions Code § 6044.5 and California State Bar Rule 2302. Violation of such laws may result in disciplinary action pursuant to Business and Professions Code § 6103, which the counsel for the County would very much like to avoid.(Opp’n 7:22-26.) The County further argues: [W]here a [discovery] response has been made, but the demanding party is not satisfied with it, the remedy is a motion to compel further responses. [Citation.] Where a response has been made as to privilege, and the demanding party is not satisfied with the applicability of the privilege to the specific documents, the remedy is a motion to seek a determination of the claim from the court . . . . .... However, [Medfin] fails to address, in their motion, the privilege objection lodged by the [County].(Opp’n 5:16-6:14.) Any party to an action may serve a written demand to permit inspection and copying of documents, electronically stored information, or other tangible things in the responding party's possession, custody, or control. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010.) [fn.] Within 30 days, the responding party must serve a written response to the demand that separately responds to each category Page 5 of 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00306042-CU-MC-GDS: Medfin Manager, LLC vs. County of Sacramento08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54 of documents or other things the demand seeks with (1) a statement the responding party will comply with the particular demand; (2) a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply; or (3) “[a]n objection to the particular demand.” (§ 2031.210, subd. (a); see id. § 2031.260.) If the responding party objects to a demand, the party must (1) “[i]dentify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made”; and (2) “[s]et forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated.” (§ 2031.240, subd. (b).) . . . . Privilege logs have long been used by practitioners to list and describe the items to be protected. But the expression “‘privilege log’” appeared nowhere in the Code of Civil Procedure, rather it was merely “jargon, commonly used by courts and attorneys to express the requirements of [section 2031.240, subdivision (b)].” [Citations.] “ ‘The purpose of a “privilege log” is to provide a specific factual description of documents in aid of substantiating a claim of privilege in connection with a request for document production. [Citation.] The purpose of providing a specific factual description of documents is to permit a judicial evaluation of the claim of privilege.’ ” [Citation.] In 2012, the Legislature amended section 2031.240 “to codify the concept of a privilege log as that term is used in California case law.” (§ 2031.240, subd. (c)(2).) The new section 2031.240, subdivision (c)(1), provides, “If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.” In adding this subdivision, the Legislature declared, “Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to constitute a substantive change in case law.” (§ 2031.240, subd. (c)(2).) .... If the response and any privilege log fail to provide sufficient information to allow the trial court to rule on the merits, the court Page 6 of 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00306042-CU-MC-GDS: Medfin Manager, LLC vs. County of Sacramento 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54 may order the responding party to provide a further response by serving a privilege log or, if one already has been served, a supplemental privilege log that adequately identifies each document the responding party claims is privileged and the factual basis for the privilege claim. [Citation.] . . . .(Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1124-1127.) A privilege log must identify with particularity each document the responding party claims is protected from disclosure by a privilege and provide sufficient factual information for the propounding party and court to evaluate whether the claim has merit. [Citations.] The precise information required for an adequate privilege log will vary from case to case based on the privileges asserted and the underlying circ*mstances. In general, however, a privilege log typically should provide the identity and capacity of all individuals who authored, sent, or received each allegedly privileged document, the document’s date, a brief description of the document and its contents or subject matter sufficient to determine whether the privilege applies, and the precise privilege or protection asserted. [Citations.](Id. at p. 1130 [emphasis added].)As stated by the Court of Appeal in Catalina Island Yacht Club, supra, the specific informationrequired for an adequate privilege log is case specific and depends on the privilege(s) asserted.Here, the Court finds that the County’s privilege log is sufficiently detailed in light of the natureof the privileges asserted. The County asserts that Business and Professions Code section 6044.5makes confidential all information it received from the State Bar. Accordingly, the Countycannot provide the additional detail requested by Medfin without running the risk of violatingthat statute.Medfin does not challenge in this motion the validity of the privilege claimed or its applicabilityto the subject RFPs; rather, Medfin solely argues that the County’s privilege log is inadequate.For the stated reasons, the Court disagrees. Under the circ*mstances of this case and the natureof the privileges asserted, the Court finds the privilege log to be sufficient.The Court does not reach the merits of asserted privilege, as that issue is not raised in the instantmotion.For the stated reasons, Medfin’s motion is denied. Page 7 of 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00306042-CU-MC-GDS: Medfin Manager, LLC vs. County of Sacramento 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (CodeCiv. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)[1] Much of the background comes from the State Bar of California’s Decision andOrder of Involuntary Inactive Enrollment, issued by the State Bar Court of Californiaagainst Timothy Hessler on June 15, 2011, which is attached as Exhibit 2 to Medfin’sRequest for Judicial Notice. The document is referred to herein as “D&O.”NOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on thiscalendar must comply with the following procedure:To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law andMotion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before thehearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requestingparty shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oralargument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument;and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and thatopposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If norequest for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely eithertelephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with noticeto the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Althoughremote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely fornon-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NOCOURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporterservices at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules ofCourt, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy forOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website athttps://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved OfficialReporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf. Page 8 of 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00306042-CU-MC-GDS: Medfin Manager, LLC vs. County of Sacramento 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to besigned by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using areporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiverand requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party witha Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearingor at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerkwill forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. Page 9 of 9
Ruling
34-2021-00306694-CU-BC-GDS
Aug 27, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Breach of Contract/Warranty) |34-2021-00306694-CU-BC-GDS
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00306694-CU-BC-GDS: Carter A Stack vs. General Motors, LLC 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54Tentative RulingPlaintiff Carter Stack’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel further responses to his requests forproduction of documents, set one, (“RFPs”) is granted, as follows.Factual & Procedural BackgroundThis is a Lemon Law action arising out of Plaintiff’s purchase of a 2017 GMS Sierra1500 (the “Vehicle”), which was manufactured and/or distributed by Defendant GeneralMotors, LLC (“GM”). Plaintiff alleges that during the warranty period, the Vehiclecontained or developed defects relating to its Infotainment system and transmission(collectively “Defects”). Plaintiff alleges that GM violated the Song-Beverly ConsumerWarranty Act (“SBA”) by failing to repair the Defects within a reasonable number ofattempts, and by refusing to repurchase the Vehicle despite its knowledge that itsuffered from the Defects.Plaintiff commenced this action on August 20, 2021, and filed a First AmendedComplaint (“FAC”) on May 10, 2022. The FAC alleges violations of the SBA and acause of action of breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Among otherthings, Plaintiff prays for a civil penalty of two times his actual damages under the SBA,alleging GM’s failure to comply with its obligations under the SBA was willful.Plaintiff served the RFPs on GM on March 11, 2024. Pertinent here, the RFPs includerequests that GM produce documents concerning: (A) The Subject Vehicle (i.e., RFPs Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8); (B) Internal Knowledge and Investigation related to the Infotainment andTransmission Defects in 2017 GMC Sierra vehicles (i.e., RFPs Nos. 15, 16, 23, 24, 27,28, 37, 38, 49, 50, 59, 60, 65, 66, 69, and 70); (C) Summaries, Memoranda, and Power Points related to the Infotainment andTransmission Defects in 2017 GMC Sierra vehicles (i.e., RFPs Nos. 71, 72, 80, and 81); (D) GM’s Policies and Procedures related to the SBA (i.e. RFPs Nos. 86, 88, 90,and 99); (E) Communication with Governmental Agencies and Suppliers related to theInfotainment and Transmission Defects in 2017 GMC Sierra vehicles (i.e., RFPs Nos.113, 114, 115, 116, 117, and 118); and Page 1 of 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00306694-CU-BC-GDS: Carter A Stack vs. General Motors, LLC 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54 (F) Other Documents Related to the Subject Vehicle’s Defects (i.e. RFPs No. 137and 138).Plaintiff contends: All this information is relevant as to: (a) whether the Subject Vehicle suffered from a defect; (b) whether based on its internal testing and investigation, [GM] could repair it to conform to warranty within a reasonable number of opportunities; (c) whether [GM] provided its repair facilities with sufficient literature and parts to complete repairs during the warranty period; (d) whether [GM] knew it could not repair the Subject Vehicle, but refused to repurchase it nonetheless; (e) [GM’s] knowledge prior to Plaintiff’s acquisition of the Subject Vehicle that the vehicle and its transmission, infotainment system, as well as its component parts are defective and susceptible to sudden, premature, and catastrophic failure; and 5) [GM’s] knowledge prior to Plaintiff’s acquisition of the Subject Vehicle that the vehicle, transmission, and its infotainment system as well as its component parts are defective and susceptible to sudden, premature, and catastrophic failure.(Decl. of Nino Sanaia ISO Mot. to Compel (“Sanaia Decl.”) ¶ 24.)GM served unverified answers to the RFPs on April 10, 2024. Verifications were servedon May 13, 2024. (Sanaia Decl. ¶ 25, Ex. 9.)GM interposed numerous objections to the RFPs, including objections based onrelevance, burden and oppression, vagueness/ambiguity, trade secrets, and attorney-client/work product privileges.After meet and confer efforts were unsuccessful,[1] Plaintiff filed the instant motion.Legal StandardA party responding to a request for production must respond separately to each requestby any of the following: (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand . . . by the date set for the inspection, copying, Page 2 of 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00306694-CU-BC-GDS: Carter A Stack vs. General Motors, LLC 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54 testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities. (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand . . . . (3) An objection to the particular demand . . . .(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a).)“A statement that the [responding] party . . . will comply with the particular demand shallstate that the production . . . will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that alldocuments or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, orcontrol of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in theproduction.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.)“A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand . . . shall affirm that adiligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with thatdemand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because theparticular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost,misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, orcontrol of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address ofany natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession,custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)“A valid response to an inspection demand is to object to it. (Code Civ. Proc., §2031.210, subd. (a)(3).” (Cal. Judges Benchbook: Civil Proceedings - Discovery (2024)§ 19.28.) “A valid objection defeats the demanding party’s motion to compel a furtheranswer.” (Ibid. [citing Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(3)].) “If only part of a[demand] is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of compliance, or arepresentation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item orcategory.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (a).) And “[i]f an objection is based on aclaim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, theresponse shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate themerits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.” (Id. at subd. (c)(1).)The requesting party is entitled to obtain an order compelling further responses to itsRFPs if the responding party’s statement of compliance to a demand is incomplete, theresponding party’s representation of inability to comply is inadequate or evasive, or theresponding party has made an objection that is without merit or is too general. Such amotion must set forth “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought Page 3 of 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00306694-CU-BC-GDS: Carter A Stack vs. General Motors, LLC 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) The burden of showinggood cause “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (Glenfed Dev. Corp.v. Super. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) If “good cause” is shown by themoving party, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objections made tothe demands. (Kirkland v. Super. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 [citing Coy v. Super.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221].)DiscussionPlaintiff moves for an order striking GM’s “meritless objections and compel[ling] furtherresponses to [RFPs] Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 15, 16, 23, 24, 27, 28, 37, 38, 49, 50, 59, 60, 65,66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 80, 81, 86, 88, 90, 99, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 137, and 138(collectively, the ‘Requests’) and production of all responsive documents correspondingto those Requests.” (Not. of Mot. to Compel 1:2-9.) Plaintiff also seeks monetarysanctions totaling $3,000.00. (Id. at 3:17-18, Mem. of P.&A. ISO Mot. to Compel(“MPA”) 16:17-17:2.) Plaintiff argues: The information and documents sought show whether and the extent to which the Subject Vehicle failed to conform to the applicable warranties and whether [GM] knew or should have known of the alleged defects and its inability to repair them. The information is probative of [GM’s] decision not to repurchase or replace the Subject Vehicle and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence of [GM’s] liability. Nevertheless, [GM’s] improper responses to these Requests consist of little more than pure boilerplate objections and copy and paste statements, that unilaterally limit the scope of Discovery and defy code compliance. Even where [GM] responds with statements of compliance, whether in whole or in part, such statements fail to satisfy statutory requirements.(MPA 4:9-20.)GM opposes the motion, responding that “[i]n this simple breach of warranty case abouta 2017 GMC Sierra, . . . Plaintiff should not need one single page more from GM topursue his claims.” (Opp’n 1:3-18.) GM argues: “this motion demands the production ofdocuments that are neither about Plaintiff’s [Vehicle] nor about the warranty repairs thatwere performed on [the Vehicle] . . . . Plaintiff’s . . . overbroad, irrelevant requestsshould cause this Court to deny his baseless motion.” (Id. at 1:18-24.) GM maintainsthat “its objections that documents about other vehicles, complaints from or by otherconsumers, or the design of specific component systems or parts are not relevant to Page 4 of 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00306694-CU-BC-GDS: Carter A Stack vs. General Motors, LLC 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54Plaintiff’s claim that GM failed to repair his [Vehicle] within a reasonable number ofattempts.” (Id. at 5:17-21.)The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to information about defects similar to thosealleged by Plaintiff in vehicles sold in California of the same year, make, and model asPlaintiff’s Vehicle, i.e., 2017 GMC Sierra 1500s sold in California. To the extent that theRFPs seek information about these vehicles, the requests are not overbroad, andPlaintiff has shown good cause for all of the discovery sought. Indeed, in the discoverycontext, information is relevant “if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating itscase, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement.’ [Citation.] Admissibility is not thetest and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead toadmissible evidence.” (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612.) In fact, evidence regarding other vehicles with similar defects as Plaintiff's couldpotentially be admissible at trial in a Lemon Law action. (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co.(2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 154; see also Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174Cal.App.4th 967, 971.) Here, for example, the subject documents could lead to thediscovery of admissible evidence regarding GM’s knowledge of the Defects, that GMlacks the means to fix the Defects and nevertheless refused to repurchase Plaintiff'svehicle. Such information would certainly be relevant to Plaintiff’s claim for civil penaltiesunder the SBA given that Plaintiff must show a willful failure by GM in complying with itsobligations thereunder. This includes electronically stored information (“ESI”). (Santanav. FCA US. LLC (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 334, 347.)GM’s burden and oppression objections are also overruled, including as to ESI.[2] Undueburden objections must be accompanied by a specific factual showing setting forth theamount of work necessary to respond to the subject discovery. (West Pico Furniture Co.v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417-418.) GM’s opposition is devoid of anyfactual showing whatsoever.Where GM raised objections based on the attorney-client privilege or the attorney workproduct doctrine, it failed to establish the basis for said privileges. (See Code Civ. Proc.,§ 2031.240, subd. (c)(1) [“If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim thatthe information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficientfactual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, ifnecessary, a privilege log.”].) Accordingly, when GM provides further responses to theRFPs, as ordered infra, the responses must comply with the cited authority.The Court also rejects GM’s trade secrets objections. GM failed to provide any facts tosupport the privilege claimed. The Court strongly encourages the parties to meet andconfer regarding a stipulated protective order, and if they cannot reach an agreementregarding appropriate language, GM may move for a protective order to address these Page 5 of 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00306694-CU-BC-GDS: Carter A Stack vs. General Motors, LLC 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54concerns.Finally, GM’s other boilerplate objections, including those for vagueness, are overruled.The objections are meritless, and GM made no effort to justify them in its opposition.In sum, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted.GM shall serve further, verified, Code-compliant responses to the RFPs consistent withthis ruling no later than September 30, 2024.Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is granted in the amount of $3,000 (8 hrs x therate of $375 / hour) to be paid by GM’s counsel no later than September 20, 2024.(Sanaia’s Decl. ¶ 45.) If not paid by that date, Plaintiff may prepare a formal ordergranting the sanctions for the Court’s signature, which may then be enforced as aseparate judgment. (Newland v. Super. Ct. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required.(Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)[1] The Court finds that the parties meet and confer efforts were adequate.[2] The Court need not reach Plaintiff’s argument that GM waived any objectionsrelated to ESI because even if GM had not waived them, GM failed to substantiate themin its opposition.NOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on thiscalendar must comply with the following procedure:To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law andMotion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before thehearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requestingparty shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oralargument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument;and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and thatopposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If norequest for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either Page 6 of 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00306694-CU-BC-GDS: Carter A Stack vs. General Motors, LLC 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents in Department 54telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with noticeto the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Althoughremote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely fornon-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NOCOURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporterservices at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules ofCourt, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy forOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website athttps://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved OfficialReporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to besigned by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using areporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiverand requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party witha Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearingor at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerkwill forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. Page 7 of 7
Ruling
MIDLAND STATES BANK, AN ILLINOIS STATE-CHARTERED BANK vs KHAI...
Aug 26, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Breach of Contract/Warranty) |23CV007247
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO23CV007247: MIDLAND STATES BANK, AN ILLINOIS STATE-CHARTERED BANK vs KHAIRA LOGISTICS INC., et al.08/27/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other for Post Judgment Turnover in Aid of Enforcement of Judgment in Department 54Tentative RulingPlaintiff Midland States Bank’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for a post-judgment turnover orderpursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 699.040 is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.On May 10, 2024, the Court entered default judgment in favor of Plaintiff againstdefendants Khaira Logistics, Inc. and Major Singh (collectively, “Defendants”) for thesum of $522,143.52 plus the return of Plaintiff’s four 2023 Wabash Arctic Lite Reeferswhich serve as collateral on the defaulted loan agreement (the “Vehicles”). To date,Defendants have failed to pay any portion of the judgment or surrender possession ofthe Vehicles despite multiple demands. (Declaration of Mark M. Scott, ¶¶ 2-3, Ex. 2.)Section 699.040 provides: “If a writ of execution is issued the judgment creditor mayapply to the court ex parte, or on noticed motion if the court so directs or a court rule sorequires, for an order directing the judgment debtor to transfer to the levying officereither or both of the following: (1) Possession of property sought to be levied upon if theproperty is sought to be levied upon by taking it into custody, ( 2) Possession ofdocumentary evidence of title to property of or a debt owed to the judgment debtor thatis sought to be levied upon."Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The Court will sign the order submitted.NOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must complywith the following procedure:To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral ArgumentRequest Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At thetime of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves asthe party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oralargument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing partymay appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made,the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by videoconference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties inaccordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court willpresume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link ishttps://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALLAPPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED. Page 1 of 2 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO23CV007247: MIDLAND STATES BANK, AN ILLINOIS STATE-CHARTERED BANK vs KHAIRA LOGISTICS INC., et al.08/27/2024 Hearing on Motion - Other for Post Judgment Turnover in Aid of Enforcement of Judgment in Department 54Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their ownexpense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements forrequesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the SacramentoSuperior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Temporeavailable at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.PdfA Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party,the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s ApprovedOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore list.Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests acourt reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and itmust be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an officialreporter will be provided. Page 2 of 2
Ruling
Rebecca Wu vs. Gina Carreon
Aug 27, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Wrongful Termination) |34-2018-00241694-CU-WT-GDS
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2018-00241694-CU-WT-GDS: Rebecca Wu vs. Gina Carreon 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss in Department 53Tentative RulingNOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on thiscalendar must comply with the following procedure:To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law andMotion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before thehearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requestingparty shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oralargument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument;and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and thatopposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If norequest for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely eithertelephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with noticeto the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Althoughremote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely fornon-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NOCOURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporterservices at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules ofCourt, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy forOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website athttps://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved OfficialReporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to besigned by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using areporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiverand requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party witha Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearingor at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk Page 1 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2018-00241694-CU-WT-GDS: Rebecca Wu vs. Gina Carreon 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss in Department 53will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.TENTATIVE RULING:Defendants Gina Carreon, Steve Martinez, and Linda Fowler’s (“Defendants”) motion todismiss is GRANTED, as follows.Plaintiff Rebecca Wu filed her complaint on October 1, 2018. Defendants move todismiss this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) sections 583.310 and583.360 for Plaintiff’s failure to bring the action to trial within five years. Defendants alsomove to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CCP section 583.250 for Plaintiff’s failure toserve the summons and complaint within three years.The Court will address the motion to dismiss pursuant to CCP sections 583.310 and583.360 first, as it is dispositive.“An action must be brought to trial within five years after it is commenced against adefendant, and if not, dismissal is mandatory on the motion of any party or on thecourt’s own motion. ([CCP] §§ 583.310, 583.360, subd. (a).)” (Bank of Am. v. SuperiorCourt (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1000, 1010.) Dismissal is mandatory and not subject toextension, excuse, or exception, except as expressly provided by statute. (Code of Civ.Proc., § 583.360, subd. (b).) In computing the time within which an action must be brought to trial pursuant to this article, there shall be excluded the time during which any of the following conditions existed: (a) [t]he jurisdiction of the court to try the action was suspended; (b) [p]rosecution or trial of the action was stayed or enjoined; (c) bringing the action to trial, for any other reason, was impossible, impracticable, or futile.(CCP § 583.340.)The determination 'of whether the prosecution of an action was indeed impossible,impracticable, or futile during any period of time, and hence, the determination ofwhether the impossibility exception to the five-year statute applies, is a matter within thetrial court's discretion.' (Sanchez v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1262,1271.) 'What is impossible, impracticable or futile must be determined in light of all thecirc*mstances in the individual case, including the acts and conduct of the parties andthe nature of the proceedings themselves.' (Moran v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d229, 238.) Page 2 of 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2018-00241694-CU-WT-GDS: Rebecca Wu vs. Gina Carreon 08/28/2024 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss in Department 53Defendants argue that, at the latest, the five-year statute expired on July 19, 2024, fiveyears, six months, and 109 days after Plaintiff filed her complaint. This date accounts forCOVID-related rules that applied state-wide and in Sacramento County.The Court agrees.During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Judicial Council adopted Emergency Rulespertaining to civil matters. Pertinent here, Rule 10 of the Emergency Rules provides that“[n]otwithstanding any other law, including Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310, forall civil actions filed on or before April 6, 2020, the time in which to bring a civil action totrial is extended by six months, for a total of five years and six months.” (CRC, AppendixI, Emergency Rule 10.) In addition, civil jury trials were suspended by the SacramentoSuperior Court from March 17, 2020 until January 4, 2021 as a result of the COVID-19pandemic, during which time the Court finds it was impossible, impracticable, or futilewithin the meaning of CCP section 583.340, subdivision (c) for Plaintiff to bring theaction to trial. Thus, this time must also be excluded from the calculation to the extent itexceeds Emergency Rule 10’s six-month extension. The difference between the sixmonths provided in Emergency Rule 10 and the 293 days between March 17, 2020 andJanuary 4, 2021 is 109 days.Here, the complaint was filed on October 1, 2018. Five years, six months, and 109 daysfrom that date is July 19, 2024.Plaintiff opposes the motion; however, she does not show that it was “impossible,impracticable, or futile” for her to bring the case to trial for additional periods of time thanthose discussed above.For the stated reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted. Given the above, theCourt need not reach the alternate request to dismiss the action for failure to serve thesummons and complaint within three years.Defendants shall submit a formal order of dismissal, pursuant to California Rules ofCourt, rule 3.1312. Page 3 of 3
Document
LVNV FUNDING LLC vs IGNACIO, et al.
Aug 26, 2024 |Christopher E. Krueger |(Collections Case) |Limited Civil |24CV017008
Document
AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK vs KHATTAB, et al.
Aug 29, 2024 |Christopher E. Krueger |(Collections Case) |Limited Civil |24CV017218
Document
LVNV FUNDING LLC vs PARANDAMAN
Aug 30, 2024 |Richard K. Sueyoshi |(Collections Case) |Limited Civil |24CV017291
Document
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. vs KAGRAMANYAN
Aug 28, 2024 |Richard K. Sueyoshi |(Collections Case) |Limited Civil |24CV017159
Document
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO vs RC ASSET BB LLC, et al.
Aug 27, 2024 |Richard K. Sueyoshi |(Collections Case) |Unlimited Civil |24CV017016
Document
DISCOVER BANK vs BRYANT
Aug 27, 2024 |Christopher E. Krueger |(Collections Case) |Limited Civil |24CV017032
Document
CAPITAL ONE, N.A. vs KENDALL, et al.
Aug 28, 2024 |Christopher E. Krueger |(Collections Case) |Limited Civil |24CV017035
Document
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC vs SNOW, et al.
Aug 29, 2024 |Christopher E. Krueger |(Collections Case) |Limited Civil |24CV017184
