COMPLAINT June 15, 2016 (2024)

Preview
RET. DATE: June 28, 2016 SUPERIOR COURT AMERICAN POOL SAFETYSPECIALISTS,INC. J.D. STAMFORD/NORWALK v. AT STAMFORD WATERS EDGE SWIMMING POOLS INC. June 2,2016 COMPLAINT FIRST COUNT: • 1. At the Defendant's request, the Plaintiff agreed to provide hydraulic pool cover systems and to service those systems and the Defendant promised to pay the Plaintifffor same. 2. From June 2012 through October 2014, the Plaintiff provided said hydraulic pool cover systems and services as agreed. 3. The Plaintiff forwarded invoices to the Defendant for same in the amount of $150,786.96. • 4. Despite repeated demand, there remains due and owing to the Plaintiff the sum of $52,081.36, which the Defendant neglects and refuses to pay. SECOND COUNT: 'D 1-4. Paragraphs 1 through 4 of the First Count are herein made paragraphs 1 through 'D 'D 4, inclusive, of this Second Count. 5. The Defendant has received the benefit of said products and services and has but has not made payment to the Plaintiff. • 6. By virtue of the aforesaid, the Defendant has been unjustly enriched. 7. In accordance with all of the above, there is currently due and owing the sum of $52,081.36 from the Defendant to the Plaintiff, all of which the Defendant has -.,. -.,. c-- N o failed, neglected and refused to pay despite due demand therefore. , Z THIRD COUNT: • 1-4. Paragraphs 1 through 4 of the First and Second Counts are hereby made Paragraphs 1 through 4, inclusive, of this the Third Count. 5. The actions of the Defendant constitute violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice Act, Connecticut General Statutes 942-110a, et seq., in that said actions were immoral, oppressive and unscrupulous and caused substantial injury to the Plaintiff. 6. In accordance with the CGS942-110c, a copy ofthis Complaint has been mailed to the Attorney General for the State of Connecticut . • • WHEREFORE,the Plaintiff claims: 1. Monetary damages. 2. Reasonable attorney's fees and costs. .-". •... 3. Statutory pre-judgment interest pursuant to CGS g37-3a. -.". N 4. Statutory post-judgment interest pursuant to CGS gS2-3S6d(e) and CGS o Z g37-3a. 5. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. • 6. The amount in demand is greater than FIFTEENTHOUSAND AND 00/100 ($15,000.00) DOLLARS. 7. The remedy sought is based upon an express or implied promise to pay a definite sum . • • I, MARK A. SANK, the subscribing authority, hereby certify that I have personal knowledge as to the financial responsibility of the Plaintiff and deem itsufficient to pay the costs in this action. ~ .,. r-- Of this writ, with your doings thereon, make due ser ice and return . ~ .,. N /7,/ o Dated at Stamford, Connecticut this 31" day o,f/ ay, 20 If Z • Mark A. Sank Please enter my appearance for the Plaintiff: Mark A. Sank MARK SANK & ASSOCIATES,LLC 666 Glenbrook Road Stamford, CT 06906 Tel: 203-967-1190 Juris # 421741 •

Related Contentin Fairfield County

Case

Aug 20, 2024 |C40 - Contracts - Collections |FST-CV24-6068730-S

Case

CITIBANK, N.A. v. DESANCES, KENDY

Aug 23, 2024 |C40 - Contracts - Collections |FBT-CV24-6137531-S

Case

DISCOVER BANK v. POLIMENI, JACQUELYN

Aug 21, 2024 |C40 - Contracts - Collections |FST-CV24-6068776-S

Case

ZAHAV ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC v. TOP TIER BRANDING INNOVATIONS LLC D/B/A TOP TIER B Et Al

Aug 19, 2024 |C40 - Contracts - Collections |DBD-CV24-6051356-S

Case

CAPITAL ONE, N.A. v. RODI, TINA M

Aug 16, 2024 |S00 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Credit Card (Original Owner) |FBT-CV24-6137236-S

Case

LVNV FUNDING LLC v. FIELDS, CHARLENE

Case

CAVALRY SPV I, LLC v. TAVERES, INGRIS L

Aug 21, 2024 |S15 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Purchase Debt |DBD-CV24-6051396-S

Case

SPRING OAKS CAPITAL SPV, LLC v. MOALES, MARLIN

Aug 22, 2024 |S15 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Purchase Debt |FBT-CV24-6137420-S

Case

LVNV FUNDING LLC v. SANTAMARIA, MARISSA T

Aug 22, 2024 |S15 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Purchase Debt |FST-CV24-6068797-S

Ruling

OneMain Financial Group, LLC vs. Escalante

Aug 20, 2024 |23CVG-00811

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

Ruling

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

Aug 22, 2024 |CU23-05770

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

Ruling

Discover Bank vs. Hagler-Mabry

Aug 21, 2024 |24CVG-00462

DISCOVER BANK VS. HAGLER-MABRYCase Number: 24CVG-00462Tentative Ruling on Motion to Quash Service of Summons: Defendant Deborah Hagler-Mabrymoves to quash service of summons pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10 on thegrounds of improper service. Defendant argues that personal service was improper, because theprocess server “tossed” the summons and complaint on the porch outside of Defendant’s home.Plaintiff opposes the Motion, arguing that the process server’s return establishes a rebuttablepresumption of the facts stated in the return, pursuant to California Evidence Code section 647.Plaintiff has filed a verified return establishing a rebuttable presumption that Defendant waspersonally served on June 13, 2024. Defendant has not offered any admissible evidence to rebutthe presumption.Merits: “When a defendant challenges the court's personal jurisdiction on the ground of improperservice of process the burden is on the plaintiff to prove … the facts requisite to an effectiveservice.” Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 CA4th 403, 413, (internal quotes omitted); seeLebel v. Mai (2012) 210 CA4th 1154, 1163. Delivering copies of the summons and complaint todefendant personally constitutes “personal service” of summons. CCP § 415.10. As long as theprocess server identifies himself or herself and tells the reluctant defendant that he or she is beingserved with process and leaves the papers as close as possible to the defendant, service is validnotwithstanding the defendant's refusal to accept. Trujillo v. Trujillo (1945) 71 CA2d 257, 260.California Evidence Code section 647 provides that the return of a process server registeredpursuant to Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 22350) of Division 8 of the Business andProfessions Code upon process or notice establishes a presumption, affecting the burden ofproducing evidence, of the facts stated in the return.Here, Plaintiff has provided a verified Proof of Service from a registered process server thatestablishes personal service of Defendant. The Summons and Complaint were delivered toDefendant at her home address on June 13, 2024. Defendant confirmed her identity to the processserver by nodding when named. Defendant tried to refuse service by closing the door. Thedocuments were left and seen by the Defendant. This constitutes valid personal service. Defendanthas failed to offer any admissible evidence to rebut the presumption of the facts stated in theprocess server’s return as required by Evidence Code section 647. Service is valid and the Motionto Quash is DENIED. No proposed order has been lodged as required by Local Rule 5.17(D).Defendant shall prepare the order.

Ruling

Citibank South Dakota NA vs Joseph Bramble etc

Aug 28, 2024 |Judge Patricia Kelly |1375703

/media/1584

Ruling

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

Aug 23, 2024 |22SMCV01037

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

Ruling

Advantage Leasing Corporation vs. Tarandeep Singh

Aug 22, 2024 |24CECG02181

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

Ruling

Synchrony Bank vs. Henig

Aug 22, 2024 |23CVG-00319

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

Ruling

LVNV Funding LLC vs Leslie Farias

Aug 21, 2024 |23CV-03458

23CV-03458 LVNV Funding LLC v. Leslie FariasCourt TrialAppearance required. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of thecourt at (209) 725-4111 to seek permission and arrange for a remote appearance. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED Ex Parte Matters Hon. Brian L. McCabe Courtroom 8 627 W. 21st Street, Merced Wednesday, August 21, 2024 1:15 p.m. The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725-4111 to notify the court of your intent to appear. 2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear. Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying Court Call (the court’s telephonic appearance provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court. IMPORTANT: Court Reporters will NOT be provided; parties wanting a hearing transcript must make their own arrangements.Case No. Title / DescriptionThere are no Ex Parte matters scheduled. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED Ex Parte Matters Hon. Mason Brawley Courtroom 9 627 W. 21st Street, Merced Wednesday, August 21, 2024 1:15 p.m. The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725-4111 to notify the court of your intent to appear. 2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear. Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying Court Call (the court’s telephonic appearance provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court. IMPORTANT: Court Reporters will NOT be provided; parties wanting a hearing transcript must make their own arrangements.Case No. Title / DescriptionThere are no Ex Parte matters scheduled. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED Ex Parte Matters Hon. Jennifer O. Trimble Courtroom 12 1159 G Street, Los Banos Wednesday, August 21, 2024 1:15 p.m. The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725-4111 to notify the court of your intent to appear. 2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear. Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying Court Call (the court’s telephonic appearance provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court. IMPORTANT: Court Reporters will NOT be provided; parties wanting a hearing transcript must make their own arrangements.Case No. Title / DescriptionThere are no Ex Parte matters scheduled. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED Limited Civil Long Cause Court Trials Hon. Mason Brawley Courtroom 9 627 W. 21st Street, Merced Wednesday, August 21, 2024 1:30 p.m. The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725-4111 to notify the court of your intent to appear. 2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear. Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying Court Call (the court’s telephonic appearance provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court. IMPORTANT: Court Reporters will NOT be provided; parties wanting a hearing transcript must make their own arrangements.Case No. Title / DescriptionThere are no Limited Civil Long Cause Court Trial matters scheduled.

Document

LVNV FUNDING LLC v. HAWKINS, MAXWELL

Aug 20, 2024 |S15 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Purchase Debt |FST-CV24-6068768-S

Document

LVNV FUNDING LLC v. BAILEY, JOHN

Aug 16, 2024 |S15 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Purchase Debt |FBT-CV24-6137256-S

Document

LVNV FUNDING LLC v. JANOSKO, JOAN

Aug 16, 2024 |S15 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Purchase Debt |FBT-CV24-6137246-S

Document

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. v. SWEGLAR, NELSON E

Aug 21, 2024 |C40 - Contracts - Collections |FST-CV24-6068786-S

Document

NOVOTNY, MILOS v. FRIMMER, BENJAMIN Et Al

Jan 09, 2023 |Sheila A. Ozalis |P20 - Property - Quiet Title/Discharge of Mortgage or Lien |FST-CV23-6059578-S

Document

ZAHAV ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC v. EL TUCAN LLC D/B/A EL TUCAN Et Al

May 29, 2024 |C40 - Contracts - Collections |DBD-CV24-6050402-S

Document

CONNECTICUT EYE CONSULTANTS, PC DBA DANBURY EYE PH v. MOREL, JOHNNY

Aug 16, 2024 |S10 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Medical Non-Hospital |DBD-CV24-6051345-S

Document

DISCOVER BANK v. BOROWSKA, DIANA

Aug 30, 2023 |C40 - Contracts - Collections |FST-CV23-6062977-S