On 03/13/2020 DESMOND MCVAY filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against VICTOR-MADRIGAL ARROYO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Other.
*******2523
03/13/2020
Other
Los Angeles, California
SERENA R. MURILLO
MCVAY DESMOND
1-100 DOES
ARROYO VICTOR-MADRIGAL
MADRIGAL DANIEL
JOSEPH PIUS
HONG LYNDON HYON
Court documents are not available for this case.
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/10/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 12/30/2020
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/17/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 12/30/2020
DocketOn the Complaint filed by DESMOND MCVAY on 03/13/2020, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by DESMOND MCVAY as to the entire action
DocketUpdated -- Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer: Filed By: DANIEL MADRIGAL (Defendant),VICTOR-MADRIGAL ARROYO (Defendant); Result: Sustained without Leave to Amend; Result Date: 11/10/2020; As To Parties: removed
DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Request for Attorney'...)
DocketHearing on Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Request for Attorney's Fees by Defendants Victor Madrigal-Arroyo and Daniel Madrigal scheduled for 11/10/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 11/10/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted
DocketNotice of Non Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike Attorneys Fees; Filed by: VICTOR-MADRIGAL ARROYO (Defendant); DANIEL MADRIGAL (Defendant); As to: DESMOND MCVAY (Plaintiff)
DocketNotice of Ruling re Motion to Strike and continued hearing by Court (11-10-20); Filed by: DANIEL MADRIGAL (Defendant); As to: DESMOND MCVAY (Plaintiff)
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: DANIEL MADRIGAL (Defendant); As to: DESMOND MCVAY (Plaintiff)
DocketHearing on Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Request for Attorney's Fees by Defendants Victor Madrigal-Arroyo and Daniel Madrigal scheduled for 11/10/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26
DocketMotion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer; Filed by: VICTOR-MADRIGAL ARROYO (Defendant); DANIEL MADRIGAL (Defendant)
DocketDeclaration in Support of Automatic Extension Pursuant to CCP 435.5; Filed by: VICTOR-MADRIGAL ARROYO (Defendant); DANIEL MADRIGAL (Defendant)
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/10/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/17/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: DESMOND MCVAY (Plaintiff); As to: VICTOR-MADRIGAL ARROYO (Defendant); DANIEL MADRIGAL (Defendant); DOES 1-100 (Defendant)
DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse
DocketComplaint; Filed by: DESMOND MCVAY (Plaintiff); As to: VICTOR-MADRIGAL ARROYO (Defendant); DANIEL MADRIGAL (Defendant); DOES 1-100 (Defendant)
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: DESMOND MCVAY (Plaintiff); As to: VICTOR-MADRIGAL ARROYO (Defendant); DANIEL MADRIGAL (Defendant); DOES 1-100 (Defendant)
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk
Case Number: 20STLC02523 Hearing Date: November 10, 2020 Dept: 26
McVay v. Arroyo, et
al. MOTION
TO STRIKE (CCP
§§435-436) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Victor Madrigal-Arroyo and Daniel Madrigal’s
Motion to Strike the Request for Attorney’s Fees in the Complaint is GRANTED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. ANALYSIS: Plaintiff Desmond
McVay (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence
against Defendants Victor Madrigal-Arroyo and Daniel Madrigal (“Defendants”) on March 13, 2020. On July 1,
2020, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Strike Request for Attorney’s
Fees. California law authorizes a party’s motion to strike matter
from an opposing party’s pleading if it is irrelevant, false, or improper.
(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 435; 436, subd. (a).) Motions may also target pleadings or
parts of pleadings which are not filed or drawn in conformity with applicable
laws, rules or orders. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).) Motions to strike
in limited jurisdiction courts may only challenge pleadings on the basis that
“the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations of the
complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (d).) Finally, Code Civ. Procedure section 435.5 requires that
“[b]efore filing a motion to strike pursuant to this chapter, the moving party
shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the
pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining
whether an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised
in the motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 435.5, subd. (a).) The Motion to
Strike is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required. (Hong Decl., filed 6/1/20.) To date, no
opposition has been filed. Defendants move to
strike the request for attorney’s fees. Attorney’s fees are only
recoverable when authorized by contract, statute or law. (Code Civ. Proc., §§
10221, 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).) Complaint does not allege a basis for the
attorney’s fees in contract, statute or law. (Complaint, Prayer, ¶6.)
Therefore, the Complaint lacks sufficient allegations to make a claim for
attorney’s fees. The only question is whether Plaintiff can demonstrate a basis
to amend the Complaint to adequately request attorney’s fees. In failing to
oppose this Motion, the Court finds Plaintiff has not shown grounds for leave
to amend. Conclusion Defendants Victor Madrigal-Arroyo and Daniel Madrigal’s
Motion to Strike the Request for Attorney’s Fees in the Complaint is GRANTED
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Moving party to give notice.
Case Number: 20STLC02523 Hearing Date: September 08, 2020 Dept: 26
MOTION TO STRIKE
(CCP §§435-436)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendants Victor Madrigal-Arroyo and Daniel Madrigal’s Motion to Strike the Request for Attorney’s Fees in the Complaint is CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 10, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff Desmond McVay (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Victor Madrigal-Arroyo and Daniel Madrigal (“Defendants”) on March 13, 2020. On July 1, 2020, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Strike Request for Attorney’s Fees. The Court finds Defendants have demonstrated compliance with the meet and confer requirement set forth at Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5. (Hong Decl., filed 6/1/20.)
However, Defendants have not demonstrated proper notice of the Motion to Strike. The Court set the hearing for the Motion to Strike by order issued on July 9, 2020 and gave notice to Plaintiff. (Minute Order, filed 7/9/20; Certificate of Mailing, filed 7/9/20.) Plaintiff was ordered to give notice of the hearing date. (Minute Order, filed 7/9/20.) To date, no proof of service demonstrating notice of the hearing date on Plaintiff has been filed with the Court. Failure to give notice of a motion is not only a violation of the statutory requirements but of due process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005; Jones v. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 757.) Therefore, the Court cannot hear the Motion unless Defendants demonstrate proper notice of the hearing was provided to Plaintiff.
Regarding the merits, Defendants move to strike the request for attorney’s fees. Attorney’s fees are only recoverable when authorized by contract, statute or law. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 10221, 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).) Complaint does not allege a basis for the attorney’s fees in contract, statute or law. (Complaint, Prayer, ¶6.) Therefore, the Complaint lacks sufficient allegations to make a claim for attorney’s fees. The only question is whether Plaintiff can demonstrate a basis to amend the Complaint to adequately request attorney’s fees.
Conclusion
Defendants Victor Madrigal-Arroyo and Daniel Madrigal’s Motion to Strike the Request for Attorney’s Fees in the Complaint is CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 10, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE CONTINUED HEARING DATE, DEFENDANTS ARE TO DEMONSTRATE PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE MOTION TO STRIKE BEING PLACED OFF CALENDAR OR DENIED. ANY OPPOSITION AND REPLY PAPERS ARE TO BE FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
Moving party to give notice.
Case Number: 20STLC02523 Hearing Date: September 03, 2020 Dept: 26
MOTION TO STRIKE
(CCP §§435-436)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendants Victor Madrigal-Arroyo and Daniel Madrigal’s Motion to Strike the Request for Attorney’s Fees in the Complaint is CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 10, 2020 AT _____ AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff Desmond McVay (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Victor Madrigal-Arroyo and Daniel Madrigal (“Defendants”) on March 13, 2020. On July 1, 2020, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Strike Request for Attorney’s Fees. The Court finds Defendants have demonstrated compliance with the meet and confer requirement set forth at Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5. (Hong Decl., filed 6/1/20.)
However, Defendants have not demonstrated proper notice of the Motion to Strike. The Court set the hearing for the Motion to Strike by order issued on July 9, 2020 and gave notice to Plaintiff. (Minute Order, filed 7/9/20; Certificate of Mailing, filed 7/9/20.) Plaintiff was ordered to give notice of the hearing date. (Minute Order, filed 7/9/20.) To date, no proof of service demonstrating notice of the hearing date on Plaintiff has been filed with the Court. Failure to give notice of a motion is not only a violation of the statutory requirements but of due process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005; Jones v. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 757.) Therefore, the Court cannot hear the Motion unless Defendants demonstrate proper notice of the hearing was provided to Plaintiff.
Regarding the merits, Defendants move to strike the request for attorney’s fees. Attorney’s fees are only recoverable when authorized by contract, statute or law. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 10221, 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).) Complaint does not allege a basis for the attorney’s fees in contract, statute or law. (Complaint, Prayer, ¶6.) Therefore, the Complaint lacks sufficient allegations to make a claim for attorney’s fees. The only question is whether Plaintiff can demonstrate a basis to amend the Complaint to adequately request attorney’s fees.
Conclusion
Defendants Victor Madrigal-Arroyo and Daniel Madrigal’s Motion to Strike the Request for Attorney’s Fees in the Complaint is CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 10, 2020 AT _____ AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE CONTINUED HEARING DATE, DEFENDANTS ARE TO DEMONSTRATE PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE MOTION TO STRIKE BEING PLACED OFF CALENDAR OR DENIED. ANY OPPOSITION AND REPLY PAPERS ARE TO BE FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
Moving party to give notice.