This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/16/2022 at 04:32:57 (UTC).

ADAM HALL VS JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC., A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 07/21/2021 ADAM HALL filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC , A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,,. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MALCOLM MACKEY and HOLLY J. FUJIE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******6915

  • Filing Date:

    07/21/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MALCOLM MACKEY

HOLLY J. FUJIE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

HALL ADAM

Defendants

BRITISH MOTORCARS VENTURA INC. DBA LAND ROVER JAGUAR VENTURA

JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC.

LAND ROVER FINANCIAL GROUP

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

DAVOODI NATAN

Defendant Attorneys

BEEBE TOD V

DORENKAMP THEODORE

 

Court Documents

Answer

8/10/2022: Answer

Answer

7/26/2022: Answer

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

5/24/2022: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

5/24/2022: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

5/26/2022: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT (2ND)

11/30/2021: Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT (2ND)

Notice of Related Case

11/30/2021: Notice of Related Case

Request for Judicial Notice

11/16/2021: Request for Judicial Notice

Reply - REPLY JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLCS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

11/16/2021: Reply - REPLY JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLCS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER

11/16/2021: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER

Reply - REPLY JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLCS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

11/16/2021: Reply - REPLY JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLCS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITH MOTION TO STRIKE (CCP 430.10))

11/23/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITH MOTION TO STRIKE (CCP 430.10))

Notice of Ruling

11/23/2021: Notice of Ruling

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 12/02/2021

12/2/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 12/02/2021

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER) OF 12/02/2021

12/2/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER) OF 12/02/2021

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE

11/4/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER

11/4/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER

Case Management Statement

10/20/2021: Case Management Statement

29 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/01/2023
  • Hearing05/01/2023 at 09:00 AM in Department 55 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/21/2023
  • Hearing04/21/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 55 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/10/2022
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC. (Defendant); As to: ADAM HALL (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/26/2022
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. Erroneously Sued As Land Rover Financial Group (Defendant); As to: ADAM HALL (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/26/2022
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by: Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/24/2022
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: ADAM HALL (Plaintiff); As to: JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC. (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/24/2022
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: ADAM HALL (Plaintiff); As to: Land Rover Financial Group (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/02/2021
  • DocketJury Trial scheduled for 05/01/2023 at 09:00 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 55

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/02/2021
  • DocketFinal Status Conference scheduled for 04/21/2023 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 55

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/02/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Court Order) of 12/02/2021

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
46 More Docket Entries
  • 07/22/2021
  • DocketCase Management Conference scheduled for 11/29/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 56

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/22/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service; Filed by: Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/22/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by: Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/22/2021
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Holly J. Fujie in Department 56 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/22/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC. (Defendant): Organization Name changed from JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC., a Delaware Limited Liability Company, to JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/22/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- BRITISH MOTORCARS VENTURA, INC. (Defendant): Organization Name changed from BRITISH MOTORCARS VENTURA, INC. (d.b.a. LAND ROVER JAGUAR VENTURA), a California Limited Liability Company, to BRITISH MOTORCARS VENTURA, INC.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/21/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: ADAM HALL (Plaintiff); As to: JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC., a Delaware Limited Liability Company, (Defendant); BRITISH MOTORCARS VENTURA, INC. (d.b.a. LAND ROVER JAGUAR VENTURA), a California Limited Liability Company, (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/21/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: ADAM HALL (Plaintiff); As to: JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC., a Delaware Limited Liability Company, (Defendant); BRITISH MOTORCARS VENTURA, INC. (d.b.a. LAND ROVER JAGUAR VENTURA), a California Limited Liability Company, (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/21/2021
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: ADAM HALL (Plaintiff); As to: JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC., a Delaware Limited Liability Company, (Defendant); BRITISH MOTORCARS VENTURA, INC. (d.b.a. LAND ROVER JAGUAR VENTURA), a California Limited Liability Company, (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/21/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: *******6915 Hearing Date: November 23, 2021 Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

ADAM HALL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: *******6915

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FAC; MOTION TO STRIKE

Date: November 23, 2021

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (“Moving Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Adam Hall

Moving Defendant asserts that it was not served with Plaintiff’s opposition papers. Moving Defendant has filed a Reply to the Opposition, which indicates that Plaintiff’s opposition papers contain no substantive response to the moving papers. The Court exercises its discretion in considering the opposition as well as the moving and reply papers.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Moving Defendant’s Requests for Judicial Notice are granted.

BACKGROUND

This case arises out of Defendant’s alleged failure to complete payments pursuant to a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) entered in a lemon law case styled as Adam Hall, et al., v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, et al., Case No. 21STCV06219 (the “Song-Beverly Action”), which is currently pending before the Honorable Malcolm Mackey in Department 55. The currently operative First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) alleges: (1) breach of contract; (2) violation of the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (the “CCRAA”); and (3) violation of the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Act (the “Rosenthal Act”).

Moving Defendant filed a demurrer (the “Demurrer”) to each cause of action alleged in the FAC arguing that: (1) under the doctrine of abatement, the breach of contract claim should be stayed pending the resolution of the motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Motion”) filed in the Song-Beverly Action; and (2) Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action for the second and third causes of action. Moving Defendant also filed a Motion to Strike (the “Motion”) portions of the FAC.

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

The meet and confer requirement has been met with respect to both the Demurrer and Motion.

Legal Standard

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law. (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.) The court accepts as true all material factual allegations and affords them a liberal construction, but it does not consider conclusions of fact or law, opinions, speculation, or allegations contrary to law or judicially noticed facts. (Shea Homes Limited Partnership v. County of Alameda (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1254.) With respect to a demurrer, the complaint must be construed liberally by drawing reasonable inferences from the facts pleaded. (Rodas v. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 517.) A demurrer will be sustained without leave to amend if there exists no reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

First Cause of Action: Breach of Contract

A plea in abatement pursuant to CCP section 430.10, subdivision (c), may be made by demurrer or answer when there is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action. (Plant Insulation Co. v. Fibreboard Corp. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 781, 787.) The rule for determining whether the causes of action are the same for purposes of pleas in abatement is that such a plea may be maintained only where a judgment in the first action would be a complete bar to the second action. (Lord v. Garland (1946) 27 Cal.2d 840, 848.) Where a demurrer is sustained on the ground of another action pending, the proper order is not a dismissal, but abatement of further proceedings pending termination of the first action. (Id. at 850.)

Moving Defendant argues that this action grew out of the Song-Beverly Action and that the Court should sustain its Demurrer and stay the action pending the resolution of the Settlement Motion, even though the causes of action alleged in each action’s respective pleadings differ. (Demurrer 4:18-5:12.)

The Court finds that the causes of action are not sufficiently identical to require abatement because Plaintiff does not seek consequential damages related to his credit score decreasing caused by Defendant’s alleged breach of the Settlement Agreement in the Settlement Motion. An order granting, denying or deeming the Settlement Motion, would not therefore make the present breach of contract claim moot as Moving Defendant argues. Further, Moving Defendant does not dispute the existence of a valid contract.

The Court therefore OVERRULES the Demurrer to the first cause of action.

Second Cause of Action: CCRAA Violation

Civil Code section 1785.25 subdivision (a) provides that a person shall not

furnish information on a specific transaction or experience to any consumer credit reporting agency if the person knows or should know the information is incomplete or inaccurate. (Civ. Code ;1785.25, subd. (a).) Civil Code section 1785.25 subdivision (g) provides that a person who furnishes information to a consumer credit reporting agency is liable for failure to comply with the CCRAA, unless the furnisher establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that, at the time of the failure to comply with this section, the furnisher maintained reasonable procedures to comply with those provisions. (Civ. Code ; 1785.25, subd. (g).)

Moving Defendant argues that the FAC fails to establish that it is a credit reporting agency as defined in Civil Code section 1785.3, subdivision (d). (Demurrer 6:18-7:14.) The Court finds that this is not a basis for sustaining the Demurrer because the CCRAA imposes liability on persons who furnish information to credit reporting agencies. The FAC alleges that Moving Defendant knowingly provided false information to credit reporting agencies and that Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result. (FAC ¶¶ 43-48.) The documents the Court has taken judicial notice of do not directly contradict these allegations. Further, Moving Defendant provides no support for the proposition that Plaintiff was required to plead or provide evidence of its claim. Drawing all inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, the Court finds the FAC states sufficient facts to state a claim for a violation of the CCRAA and therefore OVERRULES the demurrer to the second cause of action.

Third Cause of Action: California Rosenthal Act Violation

The California Rosenthal Act requires all debt collectors attempting to collect a consumer debt to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. ;; 1692b through 1692j. (Civ. Code ; 1788.17.) As such, a plaintiff may state a claim for violation of the Rosenthal Act simply by showing that a defendant violated any of several provisions of the FDCPA. (Langan v. United Services Automobile Association (N.D. Cal. 2014) 69 F.Supp.3d 965, 981.) The Rosenthal Act mimics or incorporates by reference the FDCPA’s requirements and makes available the FDCPA’s remedies for violations. Accordingly, to maintain a Rosenthal Act claim, the plaintiff must allege that he is a “debtor,” that the defendant is a “debt collector,” and that the defendant committed a violation of the FDCPA.

Moving Defendant argues that the FAC fails to allege that it is a debt collector within the meaning of the California Rosenthal Act and that any contentions that it is a debt collector are contradicted by judicially noticeable documents. The Court agrees. The Settlement Agreement indicates that Moving Defendant is a payor, rather than a debtor, with respect to the transactions at issue in the present action. (See FAC, Exhibit A.)

The Court therefore SUSTAINS Demurrer to the third cause of action with 20 days’ leave to amend.

MOTION TO STRIKE

Legal Standard

A motion to strike either: (1) strikes any irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strikes any pleading or part thereof not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or order of court. (Code Civ. Proc. ; 436.)

Moving Defendant’s Motion seeks to strike portions of the FAC that misstate the terms of the Settlement Agreement attached to the FAC as Exhibit A. Moving Defendant also seeks to strike the requests for punitive damages and civil penalty in the prayer for relief with respect to the breach of contract action, arguing that there is no legal basis for such an award.

The Court agrees that Plaintiff failed to allege a basis for awarding either punitive damages or a civil penalty in regard to the breach of contract claim. Further, in addition to failing to serve Moving Defendant with a copy of its opposition papers, the Court notes that the document filed with the Court fails to substantively address the Motion’s arguments about the FAC’s characterization of the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

The Court therefore GRANTS Motion to Strike with 20 days’ leave to amend.

Ono its own motion, the Court orders that Plaintiff file a Notice of Related Case in connection with the Song-Beverly Action within five Court days of the date of this Order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 23rd day of November 2021

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court

'


b'

Case Number: *******6915 Hearing Date: September 20, 2021 Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

ADAM HALL,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: *******6915

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT; MOTION TO STRIKE

Date: September 20, 2021

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

MOVING PARTIES: Defendants Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC and British Motorcars Ventura, Inc. (“Defendants”)

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

Defendants filed a demurrer to the first, second and third and causes of action alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Complaint”). Defendants also filed a motion to strike portions of the Complaint. Plaintiff failed to oppose Defendants’ demurrer or motion to strike with respect to the Complaint.

After Defendants filed their demurrer and motion to strike with respect to the Complaint, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”).

Given that the FAC is now the operative complaint, Defendants’ demurrer and motion to strike with respect to the Complaint are both MOOT and are both taken off-calendar. (See JKC3H8 v. Colton (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 468, 477.)

Because no proof of service was filed with the Complaint, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve Defendants with the FAC and file a proof of service with the Court by September 24, 2021.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 20th day of September 2021

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court

'


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where LAND ROVER FINANCIAL GROUP is a litigant

Latest cases where BRITISH MOTORCARS VENTURA INC. DBA LAND JAGUAR ROVER VENTURA is a litigant

Latest cases where Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC is a litigant