This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/20/2016 at 08:06:26 (UTC).

WEN TZU DAVIS VS PEARL OF THE EAST

Case Summary

On 04/01/2014 WEN TZU DAVIS filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against PEARL OF THE EAST. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DUKES, ROBERT A.. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6761

  • Filing Date:

    04/01/2014

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Pomona Courthouse South

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

DUKES, ROBERT A.

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

DAVIS WEN-TZU

LIN CHENG-FENG

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL PLANNING OF LOS

OLISAN INC.

PEARL OF THE EAST RTC L.P.

ROWLAND HEIGHTS MOBILE ESTATES LP.

ROWLAND RANCH PROPERTIES LLC.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES REGIONAL PLANNING

Defendant and Cross Defendant

ROWLAND RANCH PROPERTIES LLC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

DOWDALL TERRY R. ESQ.

SMITH STEPHEN H. ESQ.

CITRON JOEL F. ESQ.

KRAMER JEFFREY S. LAW OFFICES OF

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/07/2016
  • Demurrer Filed by Plaintiff, & Plaintiff in Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2016
  • Motion to Strike Filed by Plaintiff, & Plaintiff in Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2016
  • Second Amended Cross-Complaint Filed by Attorney for Defendant/X-Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2016
  • Notice of Ruling Filed by Attorney for Defendant/X-Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2016
  • Reply Filed by Plaintiff, & Plaintiff in Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2016
  • Opposition (TO DEM & MO TO STRK ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/X-Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2016
  • Notice (OF TAKING MTC O/C ) Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2015
  • Answer to Complaint Filed Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2015
  • Demand for Jury Trial Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2015
  • Motion to Strike (PORTIONS OF CROSS-COMPLAINANTS, PEARL OF THE EAST RTC, L.P.'S FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT ) Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff in Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
102 More Docket Entries
  • 05/13/2014
  • Notice of Continuance (DEMURRER/STRIKE ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2014
  • Cross-complaint filed Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2014
  • Demand for Jury Trial Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2014
  • Answer to Complaint Filed Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2014
  • Notice of Hearing on Demurrer (SET 7/17/14 ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2014
  • Motion to Strike (SET 7/17/14 ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2014
  • Notice-Case Management Conference Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2014
  • Order-Court Fee Waiver Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2014
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2014
  • Request-Waive Court Fees Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: KC066761    Hearing Date: October 24, 2019    Dept: O

The Court GRANTS the abstract of judgment based on the facts that judgment was entered in Defendants’ favor. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any evidence or facts that would prevent this Court from entering the abstract of judgment, other than mitigating factors (i.e., claims of exemption) that could affect Judgment Creditors’ ability to collect on the abstract of judgment from Judgment Debtor/Plaintiff (after the abstract of judgment is entered).

Plaintiffs seems to be arguing a claim of exemption to the judgment. However, the pending motion has no relationship to a claim of exemption.