This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/22/2021 at 08:05:02 (UTC).

ALLISON GRIGONIS VS IMPALA VAN LINES

Case Summary

On 04/18/2019 ALLISON GRIGONIS filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against IMPALA VAN LINES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3852

  • Filing Date:

    04/18/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

GRIGONIS ALLISON

Defendant

IMPALA VAN LINES

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

QUILLER DOMINIC

Defendant Attorney

KAVALLER MILES LAWRENCE

 

Court Documents

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to motion to set aside default

10/15/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to motion to set aside default

Reply (name extension) - Reply OF DEFENDANT IMPALA VAN LINES TO OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS GRIGONIS ET AL. TO MOTION TO REINSTATE ANSWER STRICKEN ON JUNE 30, 2021; DECLARATION OF AGUSTIN GOMEZ.

10/20/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply OF DEFENDANT IMPALA VAN LINES TO OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS GRIGONIS ET AL. TO MOTION TO REINSTATE ANSWER STRICKEN ON JUNE 30, 2021; DECLARATION OF AGUSTIN GOMEZ.

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment - Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment

10/4/2021: Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment - Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

10/6/2021: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473); Ord...)

9/29/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473); Ord...)

Objection (name extension) - Objection OF DEFENDANT IMPALA VAN LINES TO, AND REQUEST THAT THE COURT VACATE, ITS MINUTE ORDER DATED AUGUST 25, 2021 AND FURTHER REQUEST THAT THE COURT ADOPT THE TENTATIV

9/1/2021: Objection (name extension) - Objection OF DEFENDANT IMPALA VAN LINES TO, AND REQUEST THAT THE COURT VACATE, ITS MINUTE ORDER DATED AUGUST 25, 2021 AND FURTHER REQUEST THAT THE COURT ADOPT THE TENTATIV

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473))

8/25/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473))

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473)) of 08/25/2021

8/25/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473)) of 08/25/2021

Answer - Answer

5/22/2019: Answer - Answer

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment - Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment

7/29/2021: Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment - Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment

Statement of the Case - Statement of the Case

6/24/2021: Statement of the Case - Statement of the Case

Exhibit List - Exhibit List

6/24/2021: Exhibit List - Exhibit List

Jury Instructions - Jury Instructions

6/24/2021: Jury Instructions - Jury Instructions

Witness List - Witness List

6/24/2021: Witness List - Witness List

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

6/28/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

6/30/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial) of 10/07/2020

10/7/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial) of 10/07/2020

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial)

10/7/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial)

13 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/21/2022
  • Hearing04/21/2022 at 10:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2021
  • Hearing10/27/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2021
  • Hearing10/27/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2021
  • DocketReply OF DEFENDANT IMPALA VAN LINES TO OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS GRIGONIS ET AL. TO MOTION TO REINSTATE ANSWER STRICKEN ON JUNE 30, 2021; DECLARATION OF AGUSTIN GOMEZ. Filed by: Impala Van Lines (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2021
  • DocketOpposition to motion to set aside default; Filed by: Allison Grigonis (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2021
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by: Impala Van Lines (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/04/2021
  • DocketMotion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment; Filed by: Impala Van Lines (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473) scheduled for 10/27/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default and Default Judgment/Dismissal scheduled for 10/27/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473); Ord...)

    Read MoreRead Less
26 More Docket Entries
  • 05/22/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Impala Van Lines (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • DocketNotice of Rejection - Pleadings; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/21/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/15/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Allison Grigonis (Plaintiff); As to: Impala Van Lines (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Allison Grigonis (Plaintiff); As to: Impala Van Lines (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Allison Grigonis (Plaintiff); As to: Impala Van Lines (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: 19STLC03852 Hearing Date: September 29, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION OF DEFENDANT IMPALA VAN LINES TO\r\nREINSTATE ANSWER STRICKEN ON JUNE 30, 2021

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendant\r\nImpala Van Lines

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 473(b))

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant\r\nImpala Van Lines’s Motion is GRANTED. The Answer that was stricken by this\r\nCourt on June 30, 2021 is HEREBY REINSTATED. However, Defendant’s request to\r\nvacate the August 25 Minute Order is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nProof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nCorrect Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\n16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None filed as of September\r\n27, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof September 27, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On April 18, 2019, Plaintiffs\r\nAllison Grigonis and Brian Forde (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed an action\r\nagainst Defendant Impala Van Lines (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an Answer, in\r\npro per, on May 22, 2019.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A non-jury trial was scheduled for\r\nJune 30, 2021. Defendant did not appear. (6/30/21 Minute Order.) At that time,\r\nthe Court found that Defendant had answered as a self-represented entity\r\nwithout legal representation. (Id.) For this reason, the Court struck Defendant’s\r\nAnswer. (Id.) Plaintiffs’ counsel represented to the Court it would\r\npursue a default judgment and the Court placed the trial off calendar. (Id.)\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On July 29, 2021, Defendant,\r\nthrough attorney Miles Kavaller, filed the instant Motion to Reinstate Answer\r\nStricken on June 30, 2021 (the “Motion”). Plaintiffs did not file an\r\nopposition.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Motion\r\ncame up for hearing on August 25. Counsel for Defendant did not appear at the\r\nhearing but submitted to the Court’s tentative via email. (8/25/21 Minute\r\nOrder.) Counsel for Plaintiffs was present at the hearing. (Id.) Following\r\noral argument, the Court did not adopt the tentative ruling and instead issued\r\na continuance to September 29 at 10:00 a.m. (Id.) The parties were\r\nordered to file any oppositions and/or replies per code prior to the next\r\nhearing date. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant\r\nfiled an objection and request that the Court vacate its August 25 Minute Order\r\n(the “Objection”) on September 1.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

To date,\r\nPlaintiffs have not filed any opposition.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard & Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A. Defendant’s\r\nObjection to the August 25, 2021 Minute Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

As an initial matter,\r\nthe Court notes Defendant’s objection to the August 25, 2021 Minute Order.\r\n(9/1/21 Objection, p. 2.) Defendant accuses the Court of engaging in improper\r\nex parte communications at the August 25 hearing with Plaintiffs’ counsel and of\r\nviolating California Rules of Court rule 3.1308 when it did not adopt its\r\ntentative ruling. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Rule 3.1308,\r\nsubdivision (a), provides:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

“(a) Tentative ruling procedures. A\r\ntrial court that offers a tentative ruling procedure in civil law and motion\r\nmatters must follow one of the following procedures:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(1) \r\nNotice of intent to appear required.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The court must make its tentative\r\nruling available by telephone and also, at the option of the court, by any\r\nother method designated by the court, by no later than 3:00 p.m. the court day\r\nbefore the scheduled hearing. If the court desires oral argument, the tentative\r\nruling must so direct. The tentative ruling may also note any issues on which\r\nthe court wishes the parties to provide further argument. If the court has not\r\ndirected argument, oral argument must be permitted only if a party notifies all\r\nother parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of\r\nthe party's intention to appear. A party must notify all other parties by\r\ntelephone or in person. The court must accept notice by telephone and, at its\r\ndiscretion, may also designate alternative methods by which a party may notify\r\nthe court of the party's intention to appear. The tentative ruling will become\r\nthe ruling of the court if the court has not directed oral argument by its\r\ntentative ruling and notice of intent to appear has not been given.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(2) \r\nNo notice of intent to appear required

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The court must make its tentative\r\nruling available by telephone and also, at the option of the court, by any\r\nother method designated by the court, by a specified time before the hearing.\r\nThe tentative ruling may note any issues on which the court wishes the parties\r\nto provide further argument at the hearing. This procedure must not\r\nrequire the parties to give notice of intent to appear, and the tentative\r\nruling will not automatically become the ruling of the court if such notice is\r\nnot given. The tentative ruling, or such other ruling as the court may render,\r\nwill not become the final ruling of the court until the hearing.”

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(Emphasis added.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

This Department does not require a\r\nnotice of intent to appear and makes tentative rulings available to the parties\r\nthe afternoon before the hearing, at the latest. Thus, under Rule 3.1308,\r\nsubdivision (a)(2), a tentative ruling does not become the final order\r\nof the Court until after the scheduled hearing. Law and motion matters\r\nare called every morning at their scheduled time and parties are given an\r\nopportunity to be heard on the tentative if they wish to present oral argument.\r\nIf Defendant’s counsel wanted to ensure the Court’s tentative was adopted, he\r\nshould have appeared.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Nor has the Court engaged in\r\nimproper ex parte communications with Plaintiffs’ counsel. The entirety of the\r\ncommunication between the Court and Plaintiffs’ counsel was on the record.\r\nDefendant’s counsel’s decision to submit on the tentative via email and not\r\nattend the hearing does not make oral argument from Plaintiffs’ counsel at the\r\nhearing improper. For clarification, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated at the August\r\n25 hearing he had not been properly served with the Motion and wanted an\r\nopportunity to oppose it. Defendant’s counsel was not present at the hearing to\r\nrefute Plaintiffs’ counsel’s argument. In the interest of justice, Plaintiff\r\nwas given an opportunity to brief the issue. Although Plaintiffs ultimately did\r\nnot file any opposition, Defendant was expressly permitted to file a reply\r\nbrief to any opposition.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s counsel states\r\nDefendant is prejudiced because it will incur between $2,500.00 and $3,500.00\r\nin additional attorney’s fees for filing this Objection and for “further\r\nproceedings.” (9/1/21\r\nObjection, Kavaller Decl., ¶ 5.) However, the Court does not find this\r\nobjection warranted, nor have Plaintiffs filed any opposition, so it is unclear\r\nhow such high fees will be incurred especially in light of the availability of\r\nremote hearings.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s request to vacate the\r\nAugust 25 Minute Order is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

B. Request to Set Aside\r\nthe June 30, 2021 Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant seeks relief\r\npursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). (Mot., p. 6) Under this statute, an application for\r\nrelief must be made no more than six months after entry of the judgment,\r\ndismissal, order, or other proceeding from which relief is sought and must be\r\naccompanied by an affidavit of fault attesting to the mistake, inadvertence,\r\nsurprise or neglect of the moving party or its attorney. (Code Civ. Proc., §\r\n473, subd. (b); English v. IKON Business\r\nSolutions (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 143.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s Motion is timely. It seeks\r\nto set aside the Court’s June 30, 2021 order that struck its Answer on the\r\nbasis of mistake. (Mot., p. 5.) Specifically, Defendant explains that it failed\r\nto notify the Court of its change of address, which resulted in Defendant not\r\nreceiving the Court’s October 7, 2020 notice rescheduling the trial to June 30,\r\n2020 at the Spring Street Courthouse. (Id., pp. 7-8, Yuldashev Decl., ¶\r\n2.) Defendant’s President, Jamal Yuldashev (“Yuldashev”) received Plaintiffs’ trial\r\ndocuments, but these only indicated the trial was assigned to Department 25 at\r\nthe Spring Street Courthouse without the actual address. (Id., p. 7,\r\nYuldashev Decl., ¶ 4.) In his declaration, Yuldashev explains that on June 30,\r\nhe sent two employees to testify at the trial. (Id.) One employee went\r\nto 10408 Colgate Dr., Cypress, CA 90630, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s address, and the\r\nother went to the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. (Id.) When they arrived at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Defendant’s\r\nemployees were advised the Department they were looking for was located at 312\r\nN. Spring Street. (Id.) Once they arrived at this Department,\r\nhowever, the case had already been called. (Id.) Defendant further\r\nargues that it erred in not realizing it needed to appear in this action\r\nthrough licensed counsel, a mistake which has since been corrected.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Based on the timely\r\nrequest to vacate the Court’s Order supported by Defendant’s President’s\r\ndeclaration of fault, the unopposed Motion is GRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant\r\nImpala Van Lines’s Motion is GRANTED. The Answer that was stricken by this\r\nCourt on June 30, 2021 is HEREBY REINSTATED. However, Defendant’s request to\r\nvacate the August 25 Minute Order is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

"b'

Case Number: 19STLC03852 Hearing Date: August 25, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION OF DEFENDANT IMPALA VAN LINES TO\r\nREINSTATE ANSWER STRICKEN ON JUNE 30, 2021

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendant\r\nImpala Van Lines

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDER

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 473(b))

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant\r\nImpala Van Lines’s Motion is GRANTED. The Answer that was stricken by this\r\nCourt on June 30, 2021 is HEREBY REINSTATED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nProof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nCorrect Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\n16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None filed as of August\r\n20, 2021 [ ] Late [X]\r\nNone

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof August 20, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On April 18, 2019, Plaintiffs\r\nAllison Grigonis and Brian Forde (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed an action\r\nagainst Defendant Impala Van Lines (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an Answer, in\r\npro per, on May 22, 2019.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A non-jury trial was scheduled for\r\nJune 30, 2021. Defendant did not appear. (6/30/21 Minute Order.) At that time,\r\nthe Court found that Defendant had answered as a self-represented entity\r\nwithout legal representation. (Id.) For this reason, the Court struck\r\nthe Answer filed by Defendant. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel represented to\r\nthe Court it would pursue a default judgment and the Court placed the trial off\r\ncalendar. (Id.) An OSC re Entry of Default and Default\r\nJudgment/Dismissal is scheduled for September 8, 2021. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On July 29, 2021, Defendant,\r\nthrough attorney Miles Kavaller, filed the instant Motion to Reinstate Answer\r\nStricken on June 30, 2021 (the “Motion”).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiffs have neither sought to\r\nenter default against Defendant nor filed an opposition.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard & Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant seeks relief\r\npursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). (Mot., p. 6) Under this statute, an application for\r\nrelief must be made no more than six months after entry of the judgment,\r\ndismissal, order, or other proceeding from which relief is sought and must be\r\naccompanied by an affidavit of fault attesting to the mistake, inadvertence,\r\nsurprise or neglect of the moving party or its attorney. (Code Civ. Proc., §\r\n473, subd. (b); English v. IKON Business Solutions\r\n(2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 143.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant’s Motion is timely. It seeks\r\nto set aside the Court’s June 30, 2021 order that struck its Answer on the\r\nbasis of mistake. (Mot., p. 5.) Specifically, Defendant explains that it failed\r\nto notify the Court of its change of address, which resulted in Defendant not\r\nreceiving the Court’s October 7, 2020 notice rescheduling the trial to June 30,\r\n2020 at the Spring Street Courthouse. (Id., pp. 7-8, Yuldashev Decl., ¶\r\n2.) Defendant’s President, Jamal Yuldashev (“Yuldashev”) received Plaintiff’s trial\r\ndocuments, but these only indicated the trial was assigned to Department 25 at\r\nthe Spring Street Courthouse without the actual address. (Id., p. 7,\r\nYuldashev Decl., ¶ 4.) In his declaration, Yuldashev explains that on June 30,\r\nhe sent two employees to testify at the trial. (Id.) One employee went\r\nto 10408 Colgate Dr., Cypress, CA 90630, Plaintiff’s counsel’s address, and the\r\nother went to the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. (Id.) When they arrived at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Defendant’s\r\nemployees were advised the Department they were looking for was located at 312\r\nN. Spring Street. (Id.) Once they arrived at this Department,\r\nhowever, the case had already been called. (Id.) Defendant further\r\nargues that it erred in not realizing it needed to appear in this action\r\nthrough licensed counsel, a mistake which has since been corrected.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Based on the timely\r\nrequest to vacate the Court’s Order supported by Defendant’s President’s\r\ndeclaration of fault, the unopposed Motion is GRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant\r\nImpala Van Lines’s Motion is GRANTED. The Answer that was stricken by this\r\nCourt on June 30, 2021 is HEREBY REINSTATED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer KAVALLER MILES LAWRENCE