Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/14/2019 at 09:54:24 (UTC).

PAULA BOYD VS DAVID FREEMAN

Case Summary

On 07/16/2015 PAULA BOYD filed a Property - Foreclosure lawsuit against DAVID FREEMAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are TERESA A. BEAUDET and DANIEL S. MURPHY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8216

  • Filing Date:

    07/16/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Foreclosure

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

TERESA A. BEAUDET

DANIEL S. MURPHY

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

BOYD PAULA

T.D. SERVICE COMPANY TRUSTEE

FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CO

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

DOES 1 THROUGH 10

FREEMAN DAVID

T.D. SERVICE COMPANY TRUSTEE

FIRST AMERICAN MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS LLC. A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF DAMON LAMONT HOBDY ESQ.

HOBDY DAMON L.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

STONE RICHARD S. ESQ.

JAMISON GUY E.

Cross Defendant Attorney

PARKER CHANDLER A. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Declaration

8/2/2019: Declaration

Order

8/2/2019: Order

Request for Judicial Notice

8/2/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

2/27/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Order

12/14/2018: Order

Minute Order

12/14/2018: Minute Order

Cross-Complaint

1/18/2019: Cross-Complaint

Case Management Statement

2/13/2019: Case Management Statement

Notice

6/11/2019: Notice

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE

7/21/2015: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1: WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE:

11/10/2015: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1: WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE:

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/29/2015: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

NOTICE OF ORDER RE; CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

12/29/2015: NOTICE OF ORDER RE; CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

CIVIL DEPOSIT

1/19/2016: CIVIL DEPOSIT

PLAINTIFF PAULA BOYD'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT DAVID FREEMAN'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE SUBMITTED IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DAVID FREEMAN'S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED

3/30/2016: PLAINTIFF PAULA BOYD'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT DAVID FREEMAN'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE SUBMITTED IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DAVID FREEMAN'S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED

ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

4/13/2016: ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL - CIVIL

6/19/2017: ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL - CIVIL

Minute Order

10/26/2017: Minute Order

98 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/26/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • DocketMotion for Summary Judgment (or in teh Alternative Summary Adjudication); Filed by David Freeman (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by David Freeman (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • DocketNotice of Lodging (Defendant's Appx of Exhibits ISO MSJ); Filed by David Freeman (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (of Dobiesz ISO MSJ); Filed by David Freeman (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (of David Freeman); Filed by David Freeman (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (of Guy Jamison ISO MSJ); Filed by David Freeman (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
186 More Docket Entries
  • 11/10/2015
  • DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by Paula Boyd (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2015
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 50; Unknown Event Type

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2015
  • DocketNotice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2015
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2015
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2015
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2015
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2015
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Paula Boyd (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2015
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1: WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2015
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC588216    Hearing Date: March 26, 2021    Dept: 32

Paula boyd,

Plaintiff,

v.

david freeman, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC588216

Hearing Date: March 26, 2021

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Plaintiff’s motion to augment expert witness list

BACKGROUND

This matter arises from an alleged wrongful foreclosure by Defendant David Freeman (“Defendant”) on Plaintiff Paula Boyd’s (“Plaintiff”) sixteen-unit apartment complex located at 125 West Chestnut Street, Glendale, CA 91205 (the “Subject Property”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant had given Plaintiff a loan secured by the Subject Property, with an interest rate that exceeded 10% per annum in violation of the Usury Law.

Plaintiff filed this action on July 16, 2015. The operative pleading is the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) which was filed on November 10, 2015. The FAC alleges causes of action for 1) wrongful foreclosure, 2) setting aside the trustee sale, 3) cancellation of the trustee’s deed upon sale, 4) unjust enrichment, and 5) quiet title against Defendant.

Trial is scheduled to begin April 6, 2021.

/ / /

/ / /

LEGAL STANDARD

Under CCP section 2034.610(a), on motion of any party who has engaged in a timely exchange of expert witness information, the court may grant leave to either or both of the following: (1) augment that party’s expert witness list and declaration by adding the name and address of any expert witness whom that party has subsequently retained, or (2) amend that party’s expert witness declaration with respect to the general substance of the testimony that an expert previously designated is expected to give. Under section 2034.610(b), a motion under (a) shall be made at a sufficient time in advance of the time limit for the completion of discovery under Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 2024.010) to permit the deposition of any expert to whom the motion relates to be taken within that time limit. Under exceptional circumstances, the court may permit the motion to be made at a later time. Under section 2034.610(c), the motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. 

Under CCP section 2034.720, the court shall grant leave to augment or amend an expert witness list or declaration only if all of the following conditions are satisfied: 

(a) The court has taken into account the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the list of expert witnesses. 

(b) The court has determined that any party opposing the motion will not be prejudiced in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits. 

(c) The court has determined either of the following: 

(1) The moving party would not in the exercise of reasonable diligence have determined to call that expert witness or have decided to offer the different or additional testimony of that expert witness. 

(2) The moving party failed to determine to call that expert witness, or to offer the different or additional testimony of that expert witness as a result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, and the moving party has done both of the following: (A) sought leave to augment or amend promptly after deciding to call the expert witness or to offer the different or additional testimony, and (B) promptly thereafter served a copy of the proposed expert witness information concerning the expert or the testimony described in Section 2034.260 on all other parties who have appeared in the action. 

Under section 2034.720(d), leave to augment or amend is conditioned on the moving party making the expert available immediately for a deposition under Article 3 (commencing with Section 2034.410), and on any other terms as may be just, including, but not limited to, leave to any party opposing the motion to designate additional expert witnesses or to elicit additional opinions from those previously designated, a continuance of the trial for a reasonable period of time, and the awarding of costs and litigation expenses to any party opposing the motion. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves the Court to augment her expert list because on February 18, 2021, Defendant’s retained expert, James Hibert, at deposition, testified that he intends to offer opinions at trial regarding an entirely new affirmative defense relating to the value of the Subject Property. Plaintiff contends that Mr. Hibert’s deposition was the first time she became aware that Defendant contended that the market value of the Subject Property was insufficient to satisfy the outstanding debt on the loan. Plaintiff contends that she cannot effectively respond to this new matter. Plaintiff seeks to augment her expert list and add an expert for the limited purposes of offering an opinion on the fair market value of the Subject Property at the time of the foreclosure.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to timely designate an expert that could opine on the valuation issue and now makes an effort to rectify her mismanagement of the case. On March 2, 2020, Plaintiff served her expert witness designation (the “Expert Designation”), wherein she declared that Eric Forster and Dennis H. Doss, Esq, would be “competent to testify regarding all aspects of the underlying loan and subsequent foreclosure, including, but not limited to . . . valuation of the Subject Property.” (Jamison Decl., Exh. B.) Plaintiff also designated Richard Weisinger and Darryl Zengler as experts. (Id.) On February 3, 2021 Plaintiff withdrew Mr. Forster and Mr. Zengler as expert witnesses. (Opp. to Mot. p. 3; Jamison Decl. ¶ 7.) In February 2021, Defendant deposed Mr. Weisinger and Mr. Doss, who testified that they could not offer opinions regarding the value of the Subject Property. (Jamison Decl., ¶ 7.)

Here the court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to timely designate an expert to testify regarding the valuation of the Subject Property was the result of mistake and/or excusable neglect. The court also finds that Defendant will not be prejudice by the court allowing plaintiff to designate this additional expert witness. Plaintiff has served the expert’s information on Defendant, and Plaintiff will make her expert immediately available for deposition. Also, Defendant already has an expert who will testify concerning valuation of the subject property.

To alleviate any potential prejudice on Defendant, the Court is ordering that besides making the expert available immediately for deposition, Plaintiff shall pay all costs related to the deposition, including expert’s fees for the deposition and court reporter’s costs. (See, CCP section 2034.720(d) [court may impose such other terms as may be just.])

Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s expert’s deposition shall take place on ________________ at _______ a.m./p.m. Plaintiff shall pay all costs related to the deposition.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where FIRST AMERICAN MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where TD SERVICE COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases where First American Title Insurance Company is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer STONE, RICHARD S