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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
TERESA A. BEAUDET
DANIEL S. MURPHY
T.D. SERVICE COMPANY TRUSTEE
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CO
DOES 1 THROUGH 10
T.D. SERVICE COMPANY TRUSTEE
FIRST AMERICAN MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS LLC. A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
LAW OFFICES OF DAMON LAMONT HOBDY ESQ.
HOBDY DAMON L.
STONE RICHARD S. ESQ.
JAMISON GUY E.
PARKER CHANDLER A. ESQ.
8/2/2019: Request for Judicial Notice
2/27/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
12/14/2018: Minute Order
2/13/2019: Case Management Statement
7/21/2015: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE
11/10/2015: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1: WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE:
12/29/2015: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
12/29/2015: NOTICE OF ORDER RE; CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
1/19/2016: CIVIL DEPOSIT
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
4/13/2016: ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE
6/19/2017: ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL - CIVIL
10/26/2017: Minute Order
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary JudgmentRead MoreRead Less
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 32 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to StrikeRead MoreRead Less
DocketMotion for Summary Judgment (or in teh Alternative Summary Adjudication); Filed by David Freeman (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by David Freeman (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Lodging (Defendant's Appx of Exhibits ISO MSJ); Filed by David Freeman (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration (of Dobiesz ISO MSJ); Filed by David Freeman (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration (of David Freeman); Filed by David Freeman (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration (of Guy Jamison ISO MSJ); Filed by David Freeman (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by Paula Boyd (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 50; Unknown Event TypeRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICERead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICERead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Paula Boyd (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1: WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE; ETCRead MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC588216 Hearing Date: March 26, 2021 Dept: 32
david freeman, et al.,
Case No.: BC588216
Hearing Date: March 26, 2021
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
Plaintiff’s motion to augment expert witness list
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.
/ / /
/ / /
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.
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.
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.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases