Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/14/2019 at 09:02:09 (UTC).

MICHAEL S YU A L C ET AL VS BANK OF THE WEST ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/30/2014 MICHAEL S YU A L C filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against BANK OF THE WEST. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MICHAEL P. LINFIELD, DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB and RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2415

  • Filing Date:

    10/30/2014

  • 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

MICHAEL P. LINFIELD

DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB

RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

MICHAEL S. YU A LAW CORPORATION

MY LAW HOLDINGS LLC

YU MICHAEL S.

MICHAEL S. YU ALC

Defendants and Respondents

BANK OF THE WEST

COMMERCIAL LOAN SOLUTIONS III LLC

COMMERCIAL LOAN SOLUTIONS LLC

DELANO RETAIL CENTER WEST LLC

DOES 1-20

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Others

TKACH JOHN A.

LAW OFFICES OF EGBASE & ASSOCIATES

GARRETT & TULLY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

KENNEDY J. GRANT ESQ.

YU MICHAEL S. ESQ.

EGBASE GERALD OSEGHALE

PHAN LUAN K. ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

WAGENSELLER LAINE T.

CHITTENDEN RUSSELL WILLIAM

LORETTA LYNCH ATTORNEY GENERAL

MOSCARINO JOHN MATTHEW ESQ.

CHANG CANDIE Y

BOSKO DAVID IAN

FIDELITY NATIONAL LAW GROUP

JOHN A. TKACH LAW OFFICES OF

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

9/17/2018: Minute Order

Request for Judicial Notice

11/13/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment

1/25/2019: Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment

Order

6/13/2019: Order

SUMMONS

10/30/2014: SUMMONS

Minute Order

1/30/2015: Minute Order

NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

8/13/2015: NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

DEFENDANT DELANO RETAIL CENTER WEST, LLC'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

8/19/2015: DEFENDANT DELANO RETAIL CENTER WEST, LLC'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS COMMERCIAL LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC AND COMMERCIAL LOAN SOLUTIONS III, LLC'S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

11/13/2015: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS COMMERCIAL LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC AND COMMERCIAL LOAN SOLUTIONS III, LLC'S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS COMMERCIAL LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC AND COMMERCIAL LOAN SOLUTIONS III, LLC'S DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

2/24/2016: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS COMMERCIAL LOAN SOLUTIONS, LLC AND COMMERCIAL LOAN SOLUTIONS III, LLC'S DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

OPPOSITION BY DEFENDANT BANK OF THE WEST TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE DEMURRER

3/18/2016: OPPOSITION BY DEFENDANT BANK OF THE WEST TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE DEMURRER

DEFENDANT DELANO RETAIL CENTER WEST, LLC'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

5/18/2016: DEFENDANT DELANO RETAIL CENTER WEST, LLC'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOTICE 0F RULING DENYING: DEFENDANTS CLS, LLC AND CLS III, LLC MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION.

9/28/2016: NOTICE 0F RULING DENYING: DEFENDANTS CLS, LLC AND CLS III, LLC MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION.

RECEIPT FOR EXHIBITS/RECORDS

10/3/2016: RECEIPT FOR EXHIBITS/RECORDS

NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF MICHAEL S. VU, A LAW CORPORATION'S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE TO APPEAR AT TRIAL

10/21/2016: NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF MICHAEL S. VU, A LAW CORPORATION'S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE TO APPEAR AT TRIAL

NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF THIRD PARTY WITNESS KYLE TA OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR DEFENDANTS BANK OF THE WES'?S MOT

11/18/2016: NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF THIRD PARTY WITNESS KYLE TA OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR DEFENDANTS BANK OF THE WES'?S MOT

MOTION IN LIMINE NO 4 BY DEFENDANT DELANO RETJL CENTER WEST, LLC

12/2/2016: MOTION IN LIMINE NO 4 BY DEFENDANT DELANO RETJL CENTER WEST, LLC

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION

2/21/2017: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION

280 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/08/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion - Other (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion - Other (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion - Other (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (Joinder to Commercial Loan Solutions Defendants' Motion to Set Aside Referee's Statements of Decision) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (To Set Aside Referee's Statements of Decision) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473) (Referee's Statements of Decision) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (Joinder to Bank of The West's Motion To Set Aside Referee's Statements of Decision) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion - Other Joinder to Bank of The West's Motio...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2019
  • DocketStipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter (Jennifer Sebring CSR 13749)

    Read MoreRead Less
623 More Docket Entries
  • 01/30/2015
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 47; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2015
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2015
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2015-01-30 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/20/2015
  • DocketCASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/20/2015
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by ALC Michael S. Yu (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2014
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2014
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2014
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2014
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by ALC Michael S. Yu (Plaintiff); My Law Holdings, LLC (Plaintiff); Michael S. Yu (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2014
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC562415    Hearing Date: April 23, 2021    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE: April 23, 2021 TRIAL DATE:  October 18, 2022
CASE:  BC562415 Michael S. Yu v. Bank of the West, et al.
CASE NO.:  BC562415
 
DEFENDANTS’ REQUESTS FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR ADJUDICATION 
PURSUANT TO CCC § 437c
 
MOVING PARTIES: Defendants Bank of the West, Commercial Loan Solutions, LLC, Commercial Loan Solutions, III, LLC, and Delano Retail Center, West, LLC 
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Michael S. Yu, et al.  
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
Pursuant to the Court’s orders at the trial setting conference on March 11, 2021, Defendants Commercial Loan Solutions, LLC and Commercial Loan Solutions, III, LLC (jointly “the CLS Defendants”) filed a motion seeking leave to bring motions for summary judgment and/or adjudication pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.  In addition, Defendant Bank of the West (“BOW”) and Defendant Delano Retail Center, West, LLC (“Delano”) each filed a request permitting their pursuit of motions for summary judgment and/or adjudication under section 437c.
In compliance with the Court’s order, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated opposition to the three motions filed by Defendants, asserting a series of arguments to block Defendants’ interest in filing dispositive motions under CCP § 437c.  The moving parties filed reply briefs contesting these arguments. Having reviewed all the papers submitted by the parties, the Court rules as follows.
TENTATIVE RULING:
The Court grants the request of each defendant to bring a motion for summary judgment or adjudication under CCP § 437c, so long as it complies with the statutory requirements and deadlines for filing and prosecuting such a motion.  
DISCUSSION:
All defendants claim the right to bring dispositive motions under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c.  Plaintiffs raise a number of arguments urging the Court to deny defendants’ request to file such motions before the trial set for October 18, 2021.  The Court addresses each of Plaintiffs’ arguments in the order they are asserted in the opposition.  
Plaintiffs first contend that Defendants should be prohibited from filing motions for summary judgment and/or adjudication because they have “already filed a multitude of pre-trial motions in this action seeking dispositive resolutions.” (Opp., pp. 5-6.)  There is no authority supporting this proposition.  To the contrary, it has long been the law that “[a] trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment motion filed within the time limits of section 437c.”  (Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Ct. (1989) 207 Cal. App. 3d 526, 529.)  Nothing in the statute or in any case law permits the Court to curtail a party’s right to bring a motion under section 437c, based on the party’s prior demurrers or motions for judgment on the pleadings, regardless of whether they were many or few.   
Further, there is no dispute here that there is sufficient time for Defendant to comply with the time limits of the statute.  Section 437c provides that a motion for summary judgment and/or adjudication “may be made at any time after 60 days have elapsed since the general appearance in the action or proceeding” of the party against whom the motion is directed, unless otherwise ordered by the court.  (CCP § 437c(a)(1).)  The opposing party must be given at least 75 days’ notice of the hearing, which shall be held “no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise.”  (CCP § 437c(a)(2) & (3).)  All these deadlines can be satisfied before the October 18, 2021 trial set in this action.    
Plaintiffs also urge the Court to bar any summary judgment motions on the theory that Defendants “have had more than ample opportunity to bring pre-trial dispositive motions prior to the first trial in this matter.”  (Opp., p. 5.)  But the fact that the upcoming trial is the second in this case is of no consequence, since the statute permits a hearing on a summary judgment motion that is set at least 30 days before the trial date in effect when the summary judgment motion is noticed.  (Green v. Bristol Myers Co. (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 604, 610.)  The suggestion that a summary judgment motion must be heard before the trial date initially set in the case has been soundly rejected.  (Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Ct., supra, 207 Cal. App. 3d at 529.)
Turning to their contention that there should be limitations on any defendant’s ability to file a second summary judgment motion, Plaintiffs argue that no such motions should be allowed unless Defendants first show that they have secured new or different facts, circumstances or law to justify their upcoming motion.  (Opp., pp. 6-7, citing CCP § 1008.)  This argument cannot apply to BOW or Delano, because neither ever filed a first summary judgment motion.  
The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ argument that BOW should be found to be “in privity” with the CLS defendants and bound by the consequences of their previously unsuccessful summary judgment motion.  Again, there is no legal support for such an argument.  Contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention, this is not a situation where collateral estoppel principles apply.  That doctrine “precludes the relitigation of an issue only if (1) the issue is identical to an issue decided in a prior proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated; (3) the issue was necessarily decided; (4) the decision in the prior proceeding is final and on the merits; and (5) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party to the prior proceeding or in privity with a party to the prior proceeding.”  (Zevnik v. Superior Court (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 76, 82 [Citations omitted].)  Plaintiffs have failed to establish any of these necessary factors.  Moreover, because the ruling on the CLS defendants’ prior motion was entered in the same action, not in a prior action brought to a final judgment, collateral estoppel is wholly inapplicable to BOW’s statutory right to bring a summary judgment motion.  (Gottlieb v. Kest (2006) 141 Cal. App. 4th 110,  
Even as to the CLS defendants, Plaintiffs read the statutes too strictly to require a § 1008 showing for all successive motions for summary judgment regardless of the issues raised in the prior motion.  In advancing this argument, Plaintiffs ignore the language of CCP § 437c(f)(2). 
Section 437c(f)(2) restricts multiple motions for summary judgment and/or adjudication by reference to the issues raised in them.  The provision states, in relevant part:  “A party shall not move for summary judgment based on issues asserted in a prior motion for summary adjudication and denied by the court unless that party establishes, to the satisfaction of the court, newly discovered facts or circumstances or a change of law supporting the issues reasserted in the summary judgment motion.”  (CCP § 437c(f)(2) [Emphasis added].)  Applying this provision here, the CLS defendants may bring any motion under section 437c so long as it does not raise “issues asserted in [its] prior motion for summary adjudication.”  If they do try to take a second bite at the apple regarding an issue raised in their first unsuccessful summary judgment motion, the CLS Defendants must satisfy the statutory prerequisite of demonstrating that their motion is based on “newly discovered facts or circumstances or a change of law” regarding the reasserted issues that justify the Court revisiting its previous denial.  If the latter situation arises, Plaintiffs can counter the motion by arguing that Defendants have not met their initial burden for a renewed motion as part of their opposition papers.  There is no need for this issue to be addressed before the CLS defendants file their motions.  
In summary, the Court finds that there is no bar to any defendant (or other party) bringing a motion for summary judgment or adjudication under CCP § 437c, so long as it complies with the statutory requirements and deadlines for filing and prosecuting such a motion.  
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The CLS defendants to give notice, unless waived.
Dated:  April 23, 2021 ___________________________________
Theresa M. Traber
Judge of the Superior Court
Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing.  All interested parties must be copied on the email.  It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part. 
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Commercial Loan Solutions, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where Michael S. Yu, A Law Corporation is a litigant

Latest cases where GARRETT & TULLY is a litigant