Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/17/2016 at 13:34:25 (UTC).

AUGUSTINE CHIDEBE VS. FRANK IFEDIBA, ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/27/2013 AUGUSTINE CHIDEBE filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against FRANK IFEDIBA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Torrance Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RAMONA G. SEE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9116

  • Filing Date:

    06/27/2013

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Torrance Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

RAMONA G. SEE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

CHIDEBE AUGUSTINE

Defendants

ALLWELL MEDICAL SERVICES INC.

DOES 1 THROUGH 10

IFEDIBA FRANK

ALLWELL PERSONAL CARE SERVICES

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

SZABO LAWRENCE

LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL K. CEMYAR

Defendant Attorneys

SAMUEL O. OGBOGU

LAW OFFICES OF PETER NWOSU

 

Court Documents

DEFENDANTS? MOTION IN LIMINE #2 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE EXCLUDED BY EXTRINSIC POLICY (MEDIATION) AT THE TIME OF TRIAL

12/16/2014: DEFENDANTS? MOTION IN LIMINE #2 TO EXCLUDE ANY EVIDENCE EXCLUDED BY EXTRINSIC POLICY (MEDIATION) AT THE TIME OF TRIAL

DEFENDANTS? MOTION IN LIMINE NO 1 TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM INTRODUCING ANY EXPERT WITNESS AND/OR OPINIONS AT THE TIME OF TRIAL

12/16/2014: DEFENDANTS? MOTION IN LIMINE NO 1 TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM INTRODUCING ANY EXPERT WITNESS AND/OR OPINIONS AT THE TIME OF TRIAL

DEFENDANTS? MOTION IN LIMINE NO 5 TO PRECLUDE TESTIMNVBY PLAINTIFF THAT IS UNDULY PREJUDICIAL AND LACKING PROBATIVE VALUE

12/16/2014: DEFENDANTS? MOTION IN LIMINE NO 5 TO PRECLUDE TESTIMNVBY PLAINTIFF THAT IS UNDULY PREJUDICIAL AND LACKING PROBATIVE VALUE

DEFENDANTS? MOTION IN LIMINE NO 4 TO BIFURCATE PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM AND EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

12/16/2014: DEFENDANTS? MOTION IN LIMINE NO 4 TO BIFURCATE PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM AND EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL CONDITION

DEFENDANTS? MOTION IN LIMINE #3 TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM INTRODUCING ANY EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO MEDICAL CARE, PSYCHOLOGICAL CARE AND OR MEDICAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL BILLS AT THE TIME OF TRIAL

12/16/2014: DEFENDANTS? MOTION IN LIMINE #3 TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM INTRODUCING ANY EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO MEDICAL CARE, PSYCHOLOGICAL CARE AND OR MEDICAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL BILLS AT THE TIME OF TRIAL

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/08/2016
  • Stipulation and Order (releasing of civil exhibits ) Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2016
  • Ord-Appt Apprv Rptr as Rptr protem (DORIEN SAITO ) Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2016
  • Stip & Order-use CSR (DARLENE LEWIS ) Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2016
  • Stipulation (TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EXHIBITS ) Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2016
  • Stip & Order-use CSR (ROSALIA RODAS ) Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2016
  • Stip & Order-use CSR (ROSALI RODAS CSR#13672 ) Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2016
  • Stipulation (STIPULATION OF FACTS ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2016
  • Stip & Order-use CSR (MARIE L. STRICKLAND ) Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2016
  • Stip & Order-use CSR (CYNTHIA LAMB CSR#8349 ) Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2015
  • Stip & Order-use CSR (LAURA D. GUERRRO CSR#7684 ) Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    Read MoreRead Less
42 More Docket Entries
  • 07/29/2013
  • Request for Judicial Notice ( AT HEARING ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2013
  • Reply ( TO DEFT'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PTF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2013
  • Declaration ( OF LAWRENCE SZABO IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO DEFT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2013
  • Points and Authorities ( MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PTF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2013
  • Proof of Service ( SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT PARTY SERVED: ALLWELL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. aka ALLWELL PERSONAL CARE SERVICES) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2013
  • Proof of Service (SUB SERVED: DIANNA MARTINEZ ON BEHALF OF FRANK IFEDIBA ON 7/8/13 ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2013
  • OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous) Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2013
  • Notice of Motion (AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2013
  • Summons Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2013
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: YC069116    Hearing Date: March 9, 2021    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka

Department B

Tuesday – March 9, 2021

Calendar No. 8

PROCEEDINGS

Augustine Chidebe v. Frank Ifediba, et al.

YC069116

  1. Augustine Chidebe’s Motion for an Order Requiring Defendant Allwell Medical Services, Inc. to Comply with this Court’s Order Dated July 26, 2016 and Corporations Code Section 1601

    TENTATIVE RULING

    The Court lacks jurisdiction to reconsider or change a judgment after the entry of final judgment. See, Passavanti v. Williams (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1602, 1606. Plaintiff presented no authority upon which the Court may act to order compliance with the Court’s judgment entered on July 27, 2016. Plaintiff set forth the following authority: CCP § 1209(5), Corp. Code § 708.120, Corporations Code § 114, and Corporations Code § 1601. Plaintiff also cited to Gilmore v. Emsio Derrick & Equipment Co. (1937) 22 Cal.App.2d. 64.

    While Plaintiff made reference to CCP § 1209(5), the Court assumes that Plaintiff intended to reference CCP § 1209(a)(5). Code Civ. Proc., § 1209(a)(5) states: “(a) The following acts or omissions in respect to a court of justice, or proceedings therein, are contempts of the authority of the court: (5) Disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court.”

    Corp. Code 1601 states:

    “(a)(1) The accounting books, records, and minutes of proceedings of the shareholders and the board and committees of the board of any domestic corporation, and of any foreign corporation keeping any records in this state or having its principal executive office in this state, or a true and accurate copy thereof if the original has been lost, destroyed, or is not normally physically located within this state shall be open to inspection at the corporation's principal office in this state, or if none, at the physical location for the corporation's registered agent for service of process in this state, upon the written demand on the corporation of any shareholder or holder of a voting trust certificate at any reasonable time during usual business hours, for a purpose reasonably related to the holder's interests as a shareholder or as the holder of a voting trust certificate.

    (2) As an alternative to the procedure in subdivision (a), the shareholder or holder of a voting trust certificate may elect to request that the corporation produce the books, records, and minutes by mail or electronically, if the shareholder or holder of a voting trust certificate pays for the reasonable costs for copying or converting the requested documents to electronic format.

    (3) The right of inspection created by this subdivision shall extend to the records of each subsidiary of a corporation subject to this subdivision.

    (b) The inspection by a shareholder or holder of a voting trust certificate may be made in person or by agent or attorney, and the right of inspection includes the right to copy and make extracts. The right of the shareholders to inspect the corporate records may not be limited by the articles or bylaws.

    Corp. Code, § 114 states:

    “All references in this division to financial statements, balance sheets, income statements, and statements of cashflows, and all references to assets, liabilities, earnings, retained earnings, and similar accounting items of a corporation mean those financial statements or comparable statements or items prepared or determined in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles then applicable, fairly presenting in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles the matters that they purport to present, subject to any specific accounting treatment required by a particular section of this division. Unless otherwise expressly stated, all references in this division to financial statements mean, in the case of a corporation that has subsidiaries, consolidated statements of the corporation and each of its subsidiaries as are required to be included in the consolidated statements under generally accepted accounting principles then applicable and all references to accounting items mean the items determined on a consolidated basis in accordance with the consolidated financial statements. Financial statements other than annual statements may be condensed or otherwise presented as permitted by authoritative accounting pronouncements.”

    Corp. Code § 708.120 does not appear to exist. However, if Plaintiff intended to refer to CCP § 708.120, this section does not provide authority for the Court to exercise jurisdiction in the manner sought by Plaintiff.

    Finally, the case cited by Plaintiff, Gilmore v. Emsio Derrick & Equipment Co. (1937) 22 Cal.App.2d. 64, also does not provide the Court authority to exercise its jurisdiction in this matter.

    None of the authorities noted above provide the Court the authority to exercise jurisdiction in this matter after the Court’s entry of judgment. There is no specific statement in the judgment in which the Court retained jurisdiction.

    Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer OGBOGU SAMUEL OBI