This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/14/2019 at 09:36:59 (UTC).

TRANSDEV SERVICES INC VS SUSANA ROSAS ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/30/2015 TRANSDEV SERVICES INC filed an Other lawsuit against SUSANA ROSAS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEVEN J. KLEIFIELD. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0315

  • Filing Date:

    04/30/2015

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEVEN J. KLEIFIELD

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

TRANSDEV SERVICES INC

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-20

ROSAS ROBERTO

ROSAS SUSANA

ROSAS ROBERT

ROSAS MARIA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

HALL ALVIN M. ESQ.

VASQUEZ DAVIL R. ESQ.

VASQUEZ DAVIL ROBERT

 

Court Documents

CLERK'S NOTICE OF RECLASSIFICATION

3/1/2018: CLERK'S NOTICE OF RECLASSIFICATION

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE (VACATE DATES)

3/1/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE (VACATE DATES)

Substitution of Attorney

4/23/2019: Substitution of Attorney

SUMMONS

4/30/2015: SUMMONS

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

5/1/2015: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT [FICTITIOUS/INCORRECT NAME]

6/29/2015: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT [FICTITIOUS/INCORRECT NAME]

AMENDED SUMMONS

7/8/2015: AMENDED SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

7/30/2015: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

NOTICE OF FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

9/4/2015: NOTICE OF FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

9/17/2015: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

9/17/2015: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Proof of Service

10/5/2015: Proof of Service

Minute Order

10/19/2015: Minute Order

DECLARATION OF SAMUEL J. MORRIS RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING RE DEFAULT

1/21/2016: DECLARATION OF SAMUEL J. MORRIS RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING RE DEFAULT

Minute Order

1/22/2016: Minute Order

DECLARATION OF COURTNEY B. LOCKHART REQUESTENG CONTINUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING RE DEFAULT

6/7/2016: DECLARATION OF COURTNEY B. LOCKHART REQUESTENG CONTINUANCE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING RE DEFAULT

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

6/9/2016: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

NOTICE OF OUTGOING TRANSFER

6/23/2016: NOTICE OF OUTGOING TRANSFER

21 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/23/2019
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Transdev Services, Inc (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • DocketCLERK'S NOTICE OF RECLASSIFICATION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • DocketRECEIPT FOR TRANSMITTED RECORD

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • DocketNotice of Incoming Transfer; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF INCOMING TRANSFER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE (VACATE DATES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2017
  • DocketMinute Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
51 More Docket Entries
  • 06/29/2015
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by Transdev Services, Inc (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2015
  • DocketAMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT [FICTITIOUS/INCORRECT NAME]

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2015
  • DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by Transdev Services, Inc (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2015
  • DocketSUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2015
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Transdev Services, Inc (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2015
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2015
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2015
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Transdev Services, Inc (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2015
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE, STATUTORY LIABILITY, SUBROGATION AND CONTRIBUTION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2015
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC580315    Hearing Date: January 27, 2021    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

susana rosas , et al.;

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC580315

Hearing Date:

January 27, 2021

Time:

8:30 a.m.

[tentative] Order RE:

(1) Ex parte application to approve and enter judgment against defendants robert rosas, roberto rosas, susana rosas, and maria rosas;

(2) PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR court judgment by default

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Transdev Services, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: n/a

  1. Ex Parte Application to Approve and Enter Judgment Against Defendants Robert Rosas, Roberto Rosas, Susana Rosas, and Maria Rosas;

  2. Plaintiff’s Request for Court Judgment by Default

  1. Ex Parte Application

On January 27, 2021, plaintiff Transdev Services, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) presented to the court an Ex Parte Application to Approve and Enter Judgment Against Defendants Robert Rosas, Roberto Rosas, Susana Rosas, and Maria Rosas.

On January 11, 2021, the court issued an order setting an Order to Show Cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to bring the action to trial within five years and six months after the action was commenced pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.310 and 583.360, and California Rules of Court, Appendix I: Emergency Rules Related to COVID-19, rule 10(a) for hearing on February 11, 2021, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 53.

In the moving papers filed in support of Plaintiff’s ex parte application, Plaintiff contends that Code of Civil Procedure section 583.350 extends the time for Plaintiff to bring this action to trial by an additional 6 months after the end of the Emergency Rules Related to COVID-19, rule 10(a). The court does not agree that section 583.350 extends the time for Plaintiff to bring this action to trial by an additional 6 months. However, the court finds that, from March 1, 2018, to August 31, 2020, it was impracticable for Plaintiff to bring this action to trial, therefore excluding this time period from the time within which this action must be brought to trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.340, subd. (c).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 583.340, subdivision (c) provides that, in computing the time within which an action must be brought to trial pursuant to section 583.310, the time during which “[b]ringing the action to trial, for any other reason, was impossible, impracticable, or futile” shall be excluded. Here, Plaintiff filed this action on April 30, 2015. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 and California Rules of Court, Emergency Rule 10(a), and without any period of impracticability, this action would have been required to have been brought to trial by October 30, 2020. However, on March 1, 2018, this action was reclassified from civil limited to civil unlimited jurisdiction, and was reassigned to Department 53. This action was not restored to the court’s calendar until August 31, 2020, when it was set for and came before the court for a non-appearance case review -- a period of 914 days. The court finds that, from March 1, 2018, to August 31, 2020, it was impracticable for Plaintiff to bring this action to trial. Accordingly, the period between March 1, 2018, and August 31, 2020, is excluded from the computation of the time within which this action must be brought to trial, and this action must therefore be brought to trial by May 2, 2023. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 583.310, 583.340, subdivision (c); Cal. Rules of Court, Emergency Rule 10(a).)

The court discharges and takes off calendar the Order to Show Cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to bring the action to trial within five years and six months after the action was commenced pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.310 and 583.360, and California Rules of Court, Appendix I: Emergency Rules Related to COVID-19, rule 10(a), which was set for hearing on February 11, 2021, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 53.

The court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff’s ex parte application, in part, as follows.

  1. Plaintiff’s Request for Court Judgment by Default

On January 11, 2021, the court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s Request for Court Judgment by default, filed October 23, 2020, because Plaintiff failed to include copies of the statement of damages that were served on each defendant in this action.

Plaintiff has filed a revised set of default judgment documents attached to Plaintiff’s January 26, 2021 ex parte application, which includes copies of the statement of damages that were served on each defendant in this action. (Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application, filed January 26, 2021, p. 119, Patterson Decl., ¶¶ 5-8, Exs. A-D.) The court will therefore rule on Plaintiff’s Request for Court Judgment by default.

On October 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Request for Court Judgment by default against defendants Susana Rosas, Maria Rosas, Roberto Rosas, and Robert Rosas in the total amount of $151,796.48, consisting of $99,413.96 in special damages and $52,382.48 in interest. In Plaintiff’s revised set of default judgment documents, Plaintiff revised its request for pre-judgment interest to $56,904.36.

The court disagrees with Plaintiff’s pre-judgment interest calculation, which Plaintiff calculates at a rate of 10% per annum on a $99,413.96 principal sum for a period of 2,089 days. Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts causes of action for negligence, statutory liability, subrogation, and contribution. Where interest is awarded on tort or other noncontractual claims, the rate is 7% per annum from the date the claim arose. (See Cal. Const. Art. 15, § 1 [“In the absence of the setting of such rate by the Legislature, the rate of interest on any judgment rendered in any court of the state shall be 7 percent per annum.”]; Children’s Hosp. and Medical Center v. Bonta (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 740, 774-775 [finding that the award of prejudgment interest at a 10 percent rate of interest was excessive because the action was not based on contract, and that the rate of prejudgment interest should instead be fixed at 7% per annum under article 15, section 1 of the California Constitution].) The court calculates a total of $39,837.23 in pre-judgment interest for Plaintiff (7% per annum on a principal sum of $99,413.96 for a period of 2,089 days).

The court finds that the evidence submitted by Plaintiff supports a court judgment by default for Plaintiff against defendants Susana Rosas, Maria Rosas, Roberto Rosas, and Robert Rosas. The court will therefore enter judgment by default against defendants Susana Rosas, Maria Rosas, Roberto Rosas, and Robert Rosas in the total amount of $139,251.19, consisting of $99,413.96 in special damages and $39,837.23 in interest.

The court directs the clerk to give notice of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 27, 2021

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC580315    Hearing Date: January 11, 2021    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

susana rosas , et al.;

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC580315

[tentative] Order RE:

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR court judgment by default

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Transdev Services, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: n/a

Request for Court Judgment by Default

On October 23, 2020, plaintiff Transdev Services, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Request for Court Judgment by default against defendants Susana Rosas, Maria Rosas, Roberto Rosas, and Robert Rosas in the total amount of $151,796.48, consisting of $99,413.96 in special damages and $52,382.52 in interest.

On August 31, 2020, the court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s Request for Court Judgment by default, filed April 28, 2020, because, although Plaintiff has filed proofs of service establishing that it served its statement of damages on each defendant before each defendant’s default was entered, Plaintiff had not submitted the statement of damages as to each defendant to the court with its default judgment documents. (Order, filed August 31, 2020, p. 1:21-26.) The court therefore ordered Plaintiff to file a revised set of default judgment documents required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a), which includes copies of the statement of damages that were served on each of the four defendants, no later than October 30, 2020. (Order, filed August 31, 2020, pp. 1:27-2:2.)

Although Plaintiff has filed a revised set of default judgment documents, Plaintiff has failed to include copies of the statement of damages that were served on each of the four defendants. Code of Civil Procedure section 580, subdivision (a), limits a trial court’s jurisdiction to grant relief on a default judgment to the amount stated in the complaint. The amount of the default judgment requested by Plaintiff exceeds that demanded in the Complaint, and the court cannot grant Plaintiff’s request for $99,413.96 in special damages unless Plaintiff submits the statement of damages that supports that request as to each defendant to the court with its default judgment documents. (See Dhawan v. Biring (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 963 [plaintiff’s default judgment on contract and fraud claims was void because, even though plaintiff served defendant with a statement of damages, plaintiff’s complaint sought punitive damages and the complaint did not state the amount of damages being sought].) The court therefore denies Plaintiff’s Request for Court Judgment by default.

The court notes the following. The defaults for defendants Roberto Rosas, Maria Rosas, and Susana Rosas were entered on September 17, 2015. The default for defendant Robert Rosas was entered on December 8, 2015. Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 requires that “[a]n action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant.” Section 583.360 provides that it is mandatory that an action be dismissed by the court on its own motion or on motion of the defendant, after notice to the parties, if the action is not brought to trial within the time prescribed in section 583.310. California Rules of Court, Appendix I: Emergency Rules Related to COVID-19, rule 10(a) provides that the time in which to bring the action to trial is extended by six months for a total time of five years and six months. This action was filed on April 30, 2015. Therefore, under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 and California Rules of Court, Emergency rule 10(a), this action must be brought to trial by October 30, 2020. On today’s date, January 11, 2021, it is now past five years and six months since commencement of this action.

Because it is now past five years and six months since commencement of this action, the court sets an Order to Show Cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to bring the action to trial within the time prescribed by Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 and Emergency rule 10(a).

The court sets an Order to Show Cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to bring the action to trial within five years and six months after the action was commenced pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.310 and 583.360, and California Rules of Court, Appendix I: Emergency Rules Related to COVID-19, rule 10(a), for hearing on February 11, 2021, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 53. The court orders that any response to the Order to Show Cause shall be filed and served no later than nine court days before the hearing.

The court directs the clerk to give notice of this order to plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 11, 2021

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where VEOLIA TRANSPORTATION SERVICES INC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer HALL ALVIN M.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer VASQUEZ DAVIL R. ESQ.