Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/06/2019 at 21:11:12 (UTC).

CHRISTINE SARTIAGUDA VS IVY BRIDGE GROUP INC

Case Summary

On 08/22/2016 CHRISTINE SARTIAGUDA filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against IVY BRIDGE GROUP INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GREGORY W. ALARCON. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1423

  • Filing Date:

    08/22/2016

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

GREGORY W. ALARCON

 

Party Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Appellant

SARTIAGUDA CHRISTINE

Defendants and Respondents

IVY BRIDGE GROUP (WEST COAST) INC.

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

IVY BRIDGE GROUP WEST COAST INC.

Not Classified By Court

SARACIONE INGRID J.

SEBRING JENNIFER

CAMERON CINDY

THE CULLEN LAW FIRM APC

ONUKI JAMIE

MCGIVERN DIANNE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

CULLEN LAW FIRM APC THE

CULLEN PAUL THOMAS

Defendant Attorneys

HSU ROGER C ESQ.

LIU JOSEPH M

 

Court Documents

JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1/4/2018: JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CASE

ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

1/19/2018: ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

Minute Order

2/5/2018: Minute Order

DEFENDANT IVY BRIDGE GROUP (WEST COAST) INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF CHRISTINE SARTIAGUDA'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO CONFORM TO PROOF; ETC.

2/20/2018: DEFENDANT IVY BRIDGE GROUP (WEST COAST) INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF CHRISTINE SARTIAGUDA'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO CONFORM TO PROOF; ETC.

APPENDIX OF FEDERAL AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF?S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO CONFORM TO PROOF

2/26/2018: APPENDIX OF FEDERAL AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF?S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO CONFORM TO PROOF

PLAINTIFF?S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO CONFORM TO PROOF; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2/26/2018: PLAINTIFF?S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO CONFORM TO PROOF; AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Minute Order

9/5/2018: Minute Order

JUDGMENT

9/5/2018: JUDGMENT

Motion to Tax Costs

10/5/2018: Motion to Tax Costs

Unknown

10/9/2018: Unknown

Reply

10/26/2018: Reply

Reply

10/29/2018: Reply

Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone

10/31/2018: Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone

Minute Order

11/2/2018: Minute Order

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

11/8/2018: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Declaration

11/13/2018: Declaration

Unknown

3/6/2019: Unknown

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

12/5/2016: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

73 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/07/2019
  • Appeal Record Delivered; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2019
  • Appeal - Notice Court Reporter to Prepare Appeal Transcript; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail (PROOF OF SERVICE FOR NOTICE OF ERRATA); Filed by Christine Sartiaguda (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2019
  • Notice of Errata

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2019
  • Notice of Default (NOA 12/12/18); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2019
  • Judgment (- Amended - DENIED); Filed by Ivy Bridge Group (West Coast), Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/24/2018
  • Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103; Filed by Christine Sartiaguda (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/24/2018
  • Appeal - Reporter Appeal Transcript Process Fee Paid; Filed by Christine Sartiaguda (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 36, Gregory W. Alarcon, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2018
  • Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
126 More Docket Entries
  • 01/13/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2016
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2016
  • Answer; Filed by Ivy Bridge Group (West Coast), Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2016
  • FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. BRACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2016
  • First Amended Complaint; Filed by Christine Sartiaguda (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2016
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Christine Sartiaguda (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/22/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC631423    Hearing Date: April 29, 2021    Dept: 36

*COUNSEL – YOU CANNOT SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE PRIOR TO THE HEARING*

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 36

CHRISTINE SARTIAGUDA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

IVY BRIDGE GROUP (WEST COAST) INC.; and Does 1-50, inclusive.

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC631423

Hearing Date:

4/29/21

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Defendant/Respondent is to inform the Court at the hearing to the expected date of revival. If the dates are feasible, the Court would permit Plaintiff/Appellant to file an amended Opposition, and Defendant/Respondent to file an amended Reply in line with the briefing schedule under Code of Civil Procedure, section 1005(b). Defendant/Appellant is ordered to file and serve documentation of revived status as the earliest opportunity. The motion is continued for 30 days.

Case Background

The Judgment in this case was issued on September 5, 2018, following issuance of the Amended Statement of Decision on August 2, 2018.

On November 2, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff/Appellant’s motion to tax costs.

On December 12, 2018, Plaintiff/Appellant Sartiaguda filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing the Judgment; the Order at trial denying Plaintiff/Appellant’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint; and the Order denying Plaintiff/Appellant’s Motion for New Trial.

On December 13, 2018, the Court granted Defendant/Respondent’s Motion for Attorney’s fees in reduced sum, and denied Plaintiff/Appellant’s Motion for New Trial.

On December 21, 2020 the Court of Appeal filed its opinion on the appeal. On February 22, 2021, the Court of Appeal certified the Order of 12/21/20 as final.

Requests for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff/Appellant Sartiaguda on Opposition requests judicial notice of Defendant/Respondent’s FTB Forfeited status. The unopposed request is granted. (Evid. Code § 452(c); see Wittman v. Chrysler Corp. (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 586, 588, fn. 1.)

Plaintiff/Appellant also requests judicial notice of an Order in another action, as well as the Defendant/Respondent’s reply brief. The Court defers ruling on these requests to the continued hearing on this motion.

Defendant/Respondent on Reply requests judicial notice of its Corporation Submission Status Result showing a Submission Status of “pending.” Good cause is shown for not having earlier requested judicial notice or filing the evidence with the motion. The unopposed request is granted. (Evid. Code § 452(c); see Wittman v. Chrysler Corp. (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 586, 588, fn. 1.)

Motion for Attorney’s Fees

In this motion, Defendant/Respondent Ivy Bridge Group (West Coast) Inc. (“Ivy Bridge”) seeks attorney’s fees of $31,984.00 against Plaintiff/Appellant Sartiaguda as legal fees incurred post-Judgment and on appeal, pursuant to Civil Code § 1717.

Plaintiff/Appellant Sartiaguda has opposed on grounds that Ivy Bridge is in suspended status by the California Secretary of State and has filed evidence in support of Ivy Bridge’s “FTB Forfeited” status. (Cullen Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4, Exh. A.)

On Reply, Ivy Bridge seeks continuance of 30 days, on grounds that it has started the process of revivor to restore good standing.

A suspended corporation lacks the legal capacity to prosecute or defend a civil action. (Corp. Code § 2205(c); Palm Valley Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Design MTC (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 553, 560.)

The court may consider facts in the Reply for the limited purpose of permitting Ivy Bridge to seek a continuance. (Schwartz v. Magyar House, Inc. (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 182, 188.)

When a corporation's suspended status ‘comes to light during litigation, the normal practice is for the trial court to permit a short continuance to enable the suspended corporation to effect reinstatement ... to defend itself in court.’” (Cadle Co. v. World Wide Hospitality Furniture, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 504, 512-13.)

Based on the foregoing, Defendant/Respondent is to inform the Court at the hearing to the expected date of revival. If the dates are feasible, the Court would permit Plaintiff/Appellant to file an amended Opposition, and Defendant/Respondent to file an amended Reply in line with the briefing schedule under Code of Civil Procedure, section 1005(b). Defendant/Appellant is ordered to file and serve documentation of revived status as the earliest opportunity. The motion is continued for 30 days.

Dated:

_____________________________

Gregory Alarcon

Superior Court Judge

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where IVY BRIDGE GROUP (WEST COAST) INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where THE CULLEN LAW FIRM is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer LIU JOSEPH M ESQ.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer HSU ROGER C.