On 05/15/2014 TELMA YOMARI FLORES GONZALEZ filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against CM LAUNDRY LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RAFAEL A. ONGKEKO, ELIZABETH R. FEFFER, KEVIN C. BRAZILE and MARK A. BORENSTEIN. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
****5854
05/15/2014
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
RAFAEL A. ONGKEKO
ELIZABETH R. FEFFER
KEVIN C. BRAZILE
MARK A. BORENSTEIN
GONZALEZ TELMA YOMARI FLORES
GUZMAN JOSE ROLANDO LOPEZ
MUNOZ ERNESTO
PALACIOS LUIS ANTONIO LARA
HERNANDEZ LISSETH
RODRIGUEZ LEONEL
RODRIGUEZ LUIS
RODRIGUEZ JONES
SAQUIC DANNY- ROE 1
RODRIGUEZ LUIS-NOTICE OF STAY
HEREDIA WILLY
GONZALEZ JOSE
ARIAS HERBERTH
CLASSIC LAUNDRY AND FINISHING INC.
HEREDIA LESTER
NOLAXCO JAIME
SANDOVAL DANY
RIVERA MARCOS
SEQUIC DANNY
CM LAUNDRY LLC
RODRIGUEZ LUIS
TREDWAY LUMSDAINE & DOYLE LLP
ROSS PETER W. ESQ
SUSSMAN SHANK LLP
LAW OFFICES OF GARY FREEDMAN
ROSS PETER W.
SPLINTER & THAI LLP
BAZAN HUERTA & ASSOCIATES
9/21/2020: Notice of Related Case - NOTICE OF RELATED CASE ((19GDCP00341) - GLENDALE COURTHOUSE - HIGHER CASE)
5/15/2014: ANSWER OF CROSS-DEFENDANT LUIS ANTONIO LARA PALACIOS
5/15/2014: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -
5/15/2014: SUMMONS -
7/17/2014: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT -
7/17/2014: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT -
7/17/2014: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT -
9/3/2014: NOTICE OF HEARING ON NOTICE OF RELATED CASE
9/9/2014: DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEYS MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL?CIVIL
10/17/2014: NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES BY CM LAUNDRY, LLC
10/22/2014: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY -
10/31/2014: NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE HEARING
11/19/2014: NOTICE OF RULING RE: AMENDED NOTICE OF RELATED CASE
1/7/2015: PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE [C.C.P. ?170.6]
1/20/2015: Minute Order -
3/25/2015: NOTICE RE PREVIOUS POSTING OF JURY FEES
5/5/2015: Minute Order -
6/21/2016: Minute Order -
DocketNotice (Notice of Change of Firm Name); Filed by CM Laundry, LLC (Defendant)
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 73; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to File Notice of Related Case) - Held - Motion Granted
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 73; Nunc Pro Tunc Order
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to File Notice of Related Case)); Filed by Clerk
DocketMinute Order ( (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)); Filed by Clerk
DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore (David A. Salyer, CSR#4410)
DocketNotice of Related Case (((19GDCP00341) - Glendale Courthouse - Higher Case)); Filed by CM Laundry, LLC (Defendant)
DocketEx Parte Application (to File Notice of Related Case); Filed by CM Laundry, LLC (Defendant)
DocketDeclaration (Declaration of Tyler J. King In Support of Judgment Creditor CM Laundry, LLC's Ex Parte Application to File Notice of Related Case); Filed by CM Laundry, LLC (Defendant)
Docketat 00:30 AM in Department 44; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination (Judgment Debtor Examination Hrng; Off Calendar) -
DocketANSWER OF CROSS-DEFENDANT JOSE ROLANDO LOPEZ GUZMAN
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
DocketAMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
DocketREQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
DocketANSWER OF CROSS-DEFENDANT JOSE GONZALEZ TO XC
DocketORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER
DocketANSWER OF CROSS-DEFENDANT LEONEL RODRIGUEZ
Case Number: BC545854 Hearing Date: September 21, 2020 Dept: 73
9/21/20
Dept. 73
Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding
FLORES GONZALEZ vs. CM LAUNDRY, LLC and related cross-action (BC545854)
Counsel for Cross-complainant/moving party CM Laundry, LLC: Browne George Ross LLP (Peter Ross; Tyler King)
Counsel for interested non-parties: Law Offices of Henry Jannol, APC (Rebecca Wester)
Matter:
Cross-complainant CM Laundry, LLC’s Ex Parte Application to File Notice of Related Case (filed 9/18/20)
Tentative ruling
The court has read and considered CM Laundry, LLC’s ex parte application.
Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to File Notice of Related Case is granted. The court finds that CM Laundry was adjudged a judgment creditor in this matter and remains a party for electronic filing purposes. Its earlier attempted filing of the Notice of Related Case, as described in counsel’s declaration, should have been accepted for this court’s consideration.
Although the usual ex parte grounds under CRC 3.1202(c) do not exist (no immediate harm, etc.), the court accepts the filing at this time to avoid any further delays. The court GRANTS CM Laundry’s ex parte application and will accept the filing of the Notice of Related Case in BC545854 and deem it filed as of this date. It has not been served on other named parties in BC545854. However, all other parties were either dismissed or defaulted. The court also finds that service of the Notice has been previously made in the pending Glendale case (19GDCP00341) and those parties do not oppose this application. There is no other party requiring service of the Notice under CRC 3.300(d).
Turning to the merits of the Notice of Related Case, after applying the factors enumerated in CRC 3.300 and Local Rule 3.3(f), the court finds that the cases are not related.
This case started as a wage and hour case against CM Laundry, LLC that was eventually dismissed when the named plaintiff failed to prosecute her complaint. This action proceeded under CM Laundry, LLC’s cross-complaint against several parties alleging various business tort claims. More than 4 years ago, on 6/24/16 CM Laundry, LLC obtained a default judgment against only one cross-defendant, Classic Laundry and Finishing, Inc. All other cross-defendants were dismissed.
On 8/15/19 CM Laundry, LLC filed a separate action in the Glendale case (19GDCP00341) and now seeks to relate that case with BC545854. Antonio Valadez and Hermelinda Rendon are named as the individual defendants in the Glendale case. Neither was a party in this action nor does the record reflect that either voluntarily appeared for any purpose. CM Laundry, LLC’s Glendale action asserts Valadez and Rendon should be liable for the Classic Laundry judgment it obtained in this case pursuant to alter ego theories.
While CM Laundry is the plaintiff in each case, the defendants are not the same. Further, the court finds CM Laundry’s claims in each case are neither the same nor are they similar. While certain underlying facts overlap, alter ego issues were not part of BC545854 and neither Valadez nor Rendon was named in this case. This case went to judgment based on Classic Laundry’s default. No significant efficiencies would be achieved by relating the actions. Thus, the court finds the issues in the Glendale case are unlikely to require substantial duplication of judicial resources or a danger of inconsistent rulings if heard in different courts.
No party will be prejudiced as a result of this ruling. There is nothing automatic about relating different cases for post-judgment alter ego determinations. Until just recently it was the court’s practice to assign post-judgment matters in unlimited civil cases for hearing in different courts (at Mosk, Dept. 44 handled such matters until its recent closure during the pandemic). The court exercises its discretion in not relating the cases.
Unless waived, notice of ruling by moving party.