This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/18/2021 at 02:03:49 (UTC).

JUAN HERNANDEZ VS HOLLYWOOD RIDES INC.; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20 INCLUSIVE

Case Summary

On 01/22/2020 JUAN HERNANDEZ filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against HOLLYWOOD RIDES INC AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20 INCLUSIVE. 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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0672

  • Filing Date:

    01/22/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

HERNANDEZ JUAN

Defendant

HOLLYWOOD RIDES INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

SIMONS STEVEN AMES ESQ.

SIMONS STEVEN AMES

Defendant Attorneys

KOUPRINE PAVEL Y. ESQ.

KOUPRINE PAVEL Y

KOUPRINE PAVEL

 

Court Documents

Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application - Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

10/4/2021: Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application - Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application Application for Continuance

10/4/2021: Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application Application for Continuance

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Hernandez- Plf Opposition to Def Ex-Parte to Cont. Trial 100521

10/5/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Hernandez- Plf Opposition to Def Ex-Parte to Cont. Trial 100521

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Defendant's Ex Parte Application for Order Contin...)

10/6/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Defendant's Ex Parte Application for Order Contin...)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Defendant's Ex Parte Application for Order Contin...) of 10/06/2021

10/6/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Defendant's Ex Parte Application for Order Contin...) of 10/06/2021

Ex Parte Proposed Order - Ex-Parte Order for Continuance of Trial

10/6/2021: Ex Parte Proposed Order - Ex-Parte Order for Continuance of Trial

Motion for Sanctions - Motion for Sanctions

9/10/2021: Motion for Sanctions - Motion for Sanctions

Amended Complaint - Amended Complaint (1st)

11/2/2020: Amended Complaint - Amended Complaint (1st)

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

12/2/2020: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Hernandez- Plf. Opposition to Def. Demurrer to Amended Complaint

2/2/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Hernandez- Plf. Opposition to Def. Demurrer to Amended Complaint

Motion for Sanctions - Motion for Sanctions

2/8/2021: Motion for Sanctions - Motion for Sanctions

Reply (name extension) - Reply Reply in support of Demurrder to FAC

2/8/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply Reply in support of Demurrder to FAC

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

2/16/2021: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

2/17/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

2/17/2021: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore - Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Minute Order - Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)

3/12/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

3/19/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Answer - Answer

3/29/2021: Answer - Answer

39 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/25/2022
  • Hearing01/25/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2021
  • Hearing12/20/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Sanctions

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Ex Parte Application to continue the trial and reset the discovery cut off: Filed By: Hollywood Rides Inc. (Defendant); Result: Granted; Result Date changed from 06/24/2021 to 10/06/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Ex Parte Application for Order Continuing the Trial to Allow Sufficient Time for Discovery Motion (scheduled for 12/20/2021): As To Parties changed from Juan Hernandez (Plaintiff) to Juan Hernandez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Plaintiff's Opposition to Ex-Parte Request for Continuance of the Trial to Allow Sufficient Time for Discovery Motion: Name Extension: blank; Exact Name: Plaintiff's Opposition to Ex-Parte Request for Continuance of the Trial to Allow Sufficient Time for Discovery Motion; As To Parties: Hollywood Rides Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 01/25/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Ex-Parte Order for Continuance of Trial: Status Date changed from 10/05/2021 to 10/06/2021; As To Parties changed from Juan Hernandez (Plaintiff) to Juan Hernandez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Defendant's Ex Parte Application for Order Contin...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Defendant's Ex Parte Application for Order Contin...) of 10/06/2021; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2021
  • DocketHearing on Ex Parte Application for Order Continuing the Trial to Allow Sufficient Time for Discovery Motion (currently scheduled for 12/20/2021) Filed by the Defendant scheduled for 10/06/2021 at 01:30 PM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 10/06/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
80 More Docket Entries
  • 04/09/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Juan Hernandez (Plaintiff); As to: Hollywood Rides Inc. (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 03/12/2020; Service Cost: 45.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/21/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 01/25/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Juan Hernandez (Plaintiff); As to: Hollywood Rides Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Juan Hernandez (Plaintiff); As to: Hollywood Rides Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Juan Hernandez (Plaintiff); As to: Hollywood Rides Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Juan Hernandez (Plaintiff); As to: Hollywood Rides Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC00672    Hearing Date: February 17, 2021    Dept: 26


Case Number: 20STLC06564    Hearing Date: February 17, 2021    Dept: 26

Medina v. BMW Financial Service, Inc., et al.

DEMURRER

(CCP § 430.10 et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Nation Motor Club, LLC’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is PLACED OFF CALENDAR. Based on the relief sought in the First Amended Complaint, this case is reclassified as an unlimited civil case and transferred to the Reclassification/Transfer Desk for collection of fees and reassignment of the case to an Independent Calendar Court. Plaintiff Rutilo Medina is ordered to pay the reclassification fee within ten (10) days.

The Court strikes the Second Amended Complaint filed on February 3, 2021.

ANALYSIS:

On August 5, 2020, Plaintiff Rutilo Medina filed the instant action against Defendants BMW Financial Services NA, LLC (“Defendant BMW”) and Nation Motor Club, LLC (“Defendant NMC”) for (1) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code § 1750, et seq.) and; (2) violation of the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Profs. Code § 17200, et seq.). Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on September 16, 2020 seeking injunctive relief under both causes of action, as well as monetary relief under the Unfair Competition Law. (FAC, p. 6:5-11.)

On December 14, 2020, Defendant NMC filed the instant Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on February 3, 2021. On February 8, 2021, Defendant NMC filed a reply in support of the Demurrer.

Discussion

The Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is placed off calendar. This Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the injunctive relief sought by Plaintiff. As a limited jurisdiction court, this Court has no authority to issue declaratory or injunctive relief, subject to certain exceptions that are not applicable here. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 85, 86.) Based on the relief sought in the First Amended Complaint and pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040, subdivision (a), this case is reclassified as an unlimited civil case and transferred to the Reclassification/Transfer Desk for collection of fees and reassignment of the case to an Independent Calendar Court. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the reclassification fee within ten (10) days.

Additionally, the Court strikes the Second Amended Complaint filed on February 3, 2021 as being filed in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 472, subdivision (a). (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b) [giving the court discretion to “[s]trike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state . . . .”].)

Court clerk to give notice.

Case Number: 20STLC00672    Hearing Date: October 13, 2020    Dept: 26

Hernandez v. Hollywood Rides, Inc., et al

DEMURRER

(CCP §§ 430.31, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Hollywood Rides, Inc.’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.

ANALYSIS:

On January 22, 2020, Plaintiff Juan Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendant Hollywood Rides, Inc. (“Defendants”) for (1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Title in Violation Of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301; and (2) Violation of Vehicle Code § 5753 Failure to Deliver Certificate of Ownership. The Complaint pertains to the sale of a used 2015 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (“the Vehicle”). (Compl.,

On April 15, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Demurrer to the Complaint. On September 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition and Defendant replied on October 5, 2020.

Request for Judicial Notice

The demurrer asks the Court to take judicial notice of the following business records created by Defendant: (1) the Vehicle/Vessel Transfer and Reassignment Form for the Vehicle; (2) an unnamed / unidentifiable document; (3) a printout of the electronic application for transfer and release of liability system; and (4) registration card of Hernandez Juan G for a 2015 Chevrolet Commercial. (Demurrer, RJN, pp. 1-2.) Other than broadly citing to Cal. Evidence Code sections 451, 452 and 453, the Demurrer offers no explanation why business records created by Defendant are matters of which the Court may take judicial notice. Defendant’s request for judicial notice is denied.

The opposition asks the Court to take judicial notice of Legislative History, Governor’s File, Senate Bill No. 237, Chapter 151, which pertains to Cal. Vehicle Code section 5753. Pursuant to Cal. Evidence Code section 452, subdivisions (a) and (c), Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted.

Discussion

The Demurrer demonstrates compliance with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. The demurring party is required to meet and confer in person or telephonically at least five days before the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The Demurrer is accompanied by a declaration demonstrating a prior meet and confer effort. (Demurrer, Parshin Decl., ¶¶2-4.)

The Court also addresses both parties’ contentions that notice of the papers was not provided as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. Insofar as neither party has been prejudiced by any apparent improper notice, the Court finds no reason to fail to address the substantive merits of the Demurrer.

The Complaint alleges two causes of action: (1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Title in Violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301; and (2) Violation of Vehicle Code § 5753 Failure to Deliver Certificate of Ownership. Defendant demurs to both causes of action for failure to allege sufficient facts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)

The Complaint alleges that on June 21, 2019, Plaintiff paid Defendant $23,737.58 in exchange for the Vehicle, at which time Defendant represented that it had full right and title to sell the Vehicle

and transfer all rights and title to the Vehicle to Plaintiff upon full payment, and that Defendant would pay all DMV registration, title and transfer fees to the California Department of Motor Vehicles (“the DMV”). (Compl., ¶¶5-6 and Exh. A.) Defendant allegedly misrepresented that it had had full right and title to sell the Vehicle and transfer all rights and title to the Vehicle to Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶7a.) Defendant also allegedly misrepresented that it would pay all DMV registration, title and transfer fees to the DMV. (Id. at ¶7b.) It is also alleged that Defendant failed to deliver the Vehicle’s certificate of ownership and registration card to Plaintiff within fifteen (15) days after receipt of full payment of the purchase price. (Id. at ¶11.)

In the first cause of action Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached the implied warranty set forth in 15 U.S.C. section 2301 by failing to deliver the certificate of ownership within 15 business days of Plaintiff’s entitlement to receive title under California Vehicle Code section 5753. (Id. at ¶¶21-23.) As a result, Plaintiff alleges he is entitled to reimbursement of the purchase money and to statutory penalties under Vehicle Code section 5753. The second cause of action also alleges that Defendant violated Vehicle Code section 5753 by failing to deliver the certificate of ownership and vehicle registration within 15 days of receipt of full payment. (Compl., ¶32.) Plaintiff again alleges he is entitled to statutory damages as a result. (Id. at ¶36.)

The gravamen of the Complaint, therefore, is Defendant’s alleged violation of Vehicle Code section 5753 and Plaintiff’s entitlement to damages thereunder. Vehicle Code section 5753 states in relevant part:

(a) It is unlawful for any person to fail or neglect properly to endorse, date, and deliver the certificate of ownership and, when having possession, to deliver the registration card to a transferee who is lawfully entitled to a transfer of registration.

(b) Except when the certificate of ownership is demanded in writing by a purchaser, a vehicle dealer licensed under this code shall satisfy the delivery requirement of this section by submitting appropriate documents and fees to the department for transfer of registration in accordance with Sections 5906 and 4456 of this code and rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.

(c)(1) Within 15 business days after receiving payment in full for the satisfaction of a security interest and a written instrument signed by the grantor of the security interest designating the transferee and authorizing release of the legal owner's interest, the legal owner shall release its security interest and mail, transmit, or deliver the vehicle's certificate of ownership to the transferee who, due to satisfaction of the security interest, is lawfully entitled to the transfer of legal ownership.

(Cal. Veh. Code, § 5753, subds. (a), (b), (c).) Section 5753 makes it unlawful for a dealer, such as Defendant, to fail to deliver the certificate of ownership and registration card to a purchaser, like Plaintiff, who is lawfully entitled to a transfer of registration. (Cal. Veh. Code, § 5753, subd. (a).) However, subdivision (b) makes delivery of the registration card to the purchaser conditional upon written demand. (Cal. Veh. Code, § 5753, subd. (b).) If no written demand is made by the purchaser, the dealer must satisfy its obligation to deliver the registration card by submitting the appropriate documents and fees to the DMV for transfer of registration in accordance with sections 5906 and 4456 of the Vehicle Code. Under subdivision (c)(1), the dealer must deliver the vehicle's certificate of ownership to the transferee within 15 days. (Cal. Veh. Code, § 5753, subd. (c)(1).)

The Complaint does not allege that Plaintiff made written demand upon Defendant for delivery of the registration card. Therefore, there is no allegation showing that Defendant was obligated to deliver the certificate of ownership and registration card to Plaintiff. Nor does the Complaint expressly allege that Defendant failed to submit the appropriate documents to the DMV for transfer of registration. So, there is no allegation that Defendant violated Cal. Vehicle Code section 5753, subdivision (c)(1).

Furthermore, in order for Plaintiff to obtain statutory penalties under Cal. Vehicle Code section 5753, subdivision (e), the Complaint must allege Defendant violated both subdivisions (c) and (d). Without an allegation that Defendant violated subdivision (c), Plaintiff also cannot allege that the certificate of ownership delivered failed to accomplish release of the legal owner's interest pursuant to subdivision (d).

Based on the foregoing, the demurrer to the Complaint is sustained with leave to amend. The Court does not reach the specific issue of whether Plaintiff can state a claim for breach of implied warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Act with respect to the purchase of a motor vehicle, but points out that “[i]n California, an implied warranty of merchantability arises under the Song–Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.” (Isip v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 19, 24.)

Conclusion

Defendant Hollywood Rides, Inc.’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND.

Moving party to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where HOLLYWOOD RIDES INC. A CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SIMONS STEVEN AMES