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 Pending - Other Pending.
*******2523
03/13/2020
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
SERENA R. MURILLO
MCVAY DESMOND
1-100 DOES
ARROYO VICTOR-MADRIGAL
MADRIGAL DANIEL
JOSEPH PIUS
HONG LYNDON HYON
9/21/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Ruling re Motion to Strike and continued hearing by Court (11-10-20)
9/21/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
9/2/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Non Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike Attorney's Fees
9/8/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Request for Attorney'...)
6/1/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration in Support of Automatic Extension Pursuant to CCP 435.5
7/1/2020: Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer - Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer
7/9/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)
7/9/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 07/09/2020
3/13/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order
3/13/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
3/13/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
3/13/2020: Complaint - Complaint
3/17/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint
Hearing03/17/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service
Hearing09/10/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial
Hearing11/10/2020 at 10:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Strike (name extension)
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
DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Request for Attorney'...)
DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Request for Attorney's Fees by Defendants Victor Madrigal-Arroyo and Daniel Madrigal scheduled for 09/08/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 11/10/2020 10:30 AM
DocketNotice of Non Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike Attorney's Fees; 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 09/08/2020 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)
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
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/10/2021 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
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: DESMOND MCVAY (Plaintiff); As to: VICTOR-MADRIGAL ARROYO (Defendant); DANIEL MADRIGAL (Defendant); DOES 1-100 (Defendant)
DocketComplaint; Filed by: DESMOND MCVAY (Plaintiff); As to: VICTOR-MADRIGAL ARROYO (Defendant); DANIEL MADRIGAL (Defendant); DOES 1-100 (Defendant)
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.