This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/23/2016 at 14:18:15 (UTC).

LINCO CUSTOM PICTURE FRAMING INC VS MARKETING FUNDAMENTAL IN

Case Summary

On 11/27/2013 LINCO CUSTOM PICTURE FRAMING INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MARKETING FUNDAMENTAL IN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GREGORY KEOSIAN and HOLLY E. KENDIG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9071

  • Filing Date:

    11/27/2013

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

GREGORY KEOSIAN

HOLLY E. KENDIG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

LINCO CUSTOM PICTURE FRAMING INC.

Defendants and Respondents

ABC BARTER

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

KURTZ JOEL

LAI GINGER

LAI YING Y.

LEUNG LORENA

MARKETING FUNDAMENTAL INCORPORATED

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN L. MARTIN

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

CRUSE JOSEPH R. JR. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

SUMMONS

12/2/2013: SUMMONS

DECLARATION OF DILIGENCE

1/3/2014: DECLARATION OF DILIGENCE

NOTICE OF I)EMURRER AND DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS ANI) AIJTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; I)ECLARATION OF JOSEPH IL CRUSF, JR

1/21/2014: NOTICE OF I)EMURRER AND DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS ANI) AIJTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; I)ECLARATION OF JOSEPH IL CRUSF, JR

NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL

2/28/2014: NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL

NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL

4/23/2014: NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL

PLAINTIFF?S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

7/3/2014: PLAINTIFF?S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

REPLY BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

7/30/2014: REPLY BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

10/1/2014: NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT

3/17/2015: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT

PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL - CIVIL

4/1/2015: PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL - CIVIL

Unknown

4/1/2015: Unknown

Unknown

4/9/2015: Unknown

RULING RE: DEFENDANTS MARKETING FUNDAMENTAL INC. D/B/A ABC BARTER AND JING Y. LAI A/K/A GINGER LAI'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF LINCO CUSTOM PICTURE FRAMING, INC.'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

4/15/2015: RULING RE: DEFENDANTS MARKETING FUNDAMENTAL INC. D/B/A ABC BARTER AND JING Y. LAI A/K/A GINGER LAI'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF LINCO CUSTOM PICTURE FRAMING, INC.'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Minute Order

8/19/2016: Minute Order

DECLARATION OF STEVEN L MARTIN IN REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION.

5/23/2017: DECLARATION OF STEVEN L MARTIN IN REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION.

Minute Order

6/2/2017: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RULING

10/2/2017: NOTICE OF RULING

Minute Order

11/14/2017: Minute Order

34 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/18/2015
  • Notice of Continuance Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2015
  • Stipulation and Order (STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2015
  • Notice of Change of Address Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2015
  • Answer Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2015
  • Order (RULING RE DEFENDANTS MARKETING FUNDAMENTAL INC. D/B/A ABC BARTER AND JING Y. LAI A/K/A GINGER LAI'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF LINCO CUSTOM PICTURE FRAMING, INC.'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT) Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2015
  • Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2015
  • Miscellaneous-Other (memorandum of points & authorities ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2015
  • Proof of Service (re notice of case assignment ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2015
  • Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2015
  • Notice of Case Assignment Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
4 More Docket Entries
  • 07/30/2014
  • Brief-Reply Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2014
  • Opposition Document Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2014
  • Notice of Change of Address Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2014
  • Notice (OF UNAVAILABILITY ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2014
  • Demurrer Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2014
  • Miscellaneous-Other (NON SERVICE REPORT ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2014
  • Proof-Service/Summons Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/03/2014
  • Declaration of Diligence Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2013
  • Summons Filed Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2013
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC529071    Hearing Date: January 07, 2020    Dept: 61

Plaintiff Linco Custom Picture Framing, Inc.’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal is GRANTED. The court will hear argument as to Judgment.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) states:

The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken. However, in the case of a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding determining the ownership or right to possession of real or personal property, without extending the six-month period, when a notice in writing is personally served within the State of California both upon the party against whom the judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding has been taken, and upon his or her attorney of record, if any, notifying that party and his or her attorney of record, if any, that the order, judgment, dismissal, or other proceeding was taken against him or her and that any rights the party has to apply for relief under the provisions of Section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall expire 90 days after service of the notice, then the application shall be made within 90 days after service of the notice upon the defaulting party or his or her attorney of record, if any, whichever service shall be later. No affidavit or declaration of merits shall be required of the moving party. Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, the court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney's sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. The court shall, whenever relief is granted based on an attorney's affidavit of fault, direct the attorney to pay reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs to opposing counsel or parties. However, this section shall not lengthen the time within which an action shall be brought to trial pursuant to Section 583.310..

Linco moves to vacate the dismissal entered on January 12, 2018, on the grounds that the settlement agreement entered by the parties stated that no dismissal was to be entered until the completion of the settlement terms, i.e. Defendants’ completion of payment. (Motion at p. 4.) Linco’s counsel declares that he filed the dismissal while recuperating from surgery and has no specific recollection of signing it. (Martin Decl. ¶¶ 4–8.) Linco argues that the declaration of counsel is sufficient grounds for both mandatory and discretionary relief from the dismissal under section 473, subd. (b).

Defendants argue that the motion is untimely because it was not filed within a reasonable time not exceeding six months. (Opposition at p. 5.) But Linco’s response is compelling: “An attorney's unauthorized disposition of clients' substantive rights is invalid and a judgment based thereon is therefore void.” (Romadka v. Hoge (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1231, 1236.) And being void, ““[d]ismissal of a cause of action by an attorney acting without any authority from his client is an act beyond the scope of his authority which, on proper proof, may be vacated at any time.” (Id. at p. 1236.) Here, Linco’s counsel testifies that he had no authority to dismiss the lawsuit, a statement corroborated by the settlement agreement’s provision that Linco shall seek dismissal “within three (3) days of the final payment” under the settlement. (Martin Decl. ¶ 9; 5/10/18 Motion, Exh. 1.)

Defendants also argue that the motion fails to include a copy of the proposed pleading as required under Code of Civil Procedure § 473, subd. (b).) (Opposition at p. 5.) Yet this objection is of little merit, as the motion specifically seeks to vacate the dismissal of the First Amended Complaint, which is the proposed pleading at issue.

Defendants argue that entering judgment nunc pro tunc to reaffirm this court’s order of May 11, 2018, would defy the ruling of the court of appeal. (Opposition at p. 5.) But the ruling of the higher court was that Linco’s dismissal deprived the court of jurisdiction to enter judgment under the agreement, notwithstanding that the agreement — signed by the parties — specifically provided for continuing jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6. (See Sayta v. Chu (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 960, 965–66 [“An action which is voluntarily dismissed in its entirety is no longer pending. . . . In short, in the absence of a motion under section 473 to vacate the dismissal, the court was without subject matter jurisdiction over the original action.”], alterations omitted.) The Court of Appeal specifically declined to rule on the propriety of Linco’s request to vacate the dismissal, or that dismissal’s effect on these proceedings.

Defendants finally argue that this motion was previously denied, but they then proceed to describe numerous instances in which the motion was withdrawn or not considered, not any instance in which the motion was denied on the merits. (Opposition at p. 6.)

Accordingly, Linco’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal is GRANTED. The court will her argument as to Judgment.