This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/01/2019 at 04:08:22 (UTC).

AMADA CORDERO VS. CATWALK TO SIDEWALK, INC.

Case Summary

On 01/05/2017 AMADA CORDERO filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against CATWALK TO SIDEWALK, INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is BRIAN F. GASDIA. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6042

  • Filing Date:

    01/05/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Norwalk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

BRIAN F. GASDIA

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

CORDERO AMADA AN INDIVIDUAL

CORDERO AMADA

Defendants

CATWALK TO SIDEWALK INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

ROBIN K. INTERNATIONAL INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

RODRIGUEZ & KING ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Defendant Attorneys

KIM JEFFREY T.

RODRIGUEZ ROB ARTHUR JR

LEE GI NAM

 

Court Documents

Unknown

1/5/2017: Unknown

Unknown

2/24/2017: Unknown

Case Management Statement

5/25/2017: Case Management Statement

Unknown

6/20/2017: Unknown

Notice of Change of Firm Name

4/10/2018: Notice of Change of Firm Name

Unknown

4/20/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

8/6/2018: Minute Order

Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (C.C.P., ? 170.6)

8/6/2018: Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (C.C.P., ? 170.6)

Notice of Motion

9/24/2018: Notice of Motion

Minute Order

10/25/2018: Minute Order

Statement of the Case

11/6/2018: Statement of the Case

Minute Order

11/15/2018: Minute Order

Stipulation

11/26/2018: Stipulation

Minute Order

11/26/2018: Minute Order

Order

12/5/2018: Order

Motion in Limine

12/5/2018: Motion in Limine

Opposition

12/5/2018: Opposition

Opposition

12/5/2018: Opposition

45 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/19/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department R, Brian F. Gasdia, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2019
  • Order (granting a continuance of trial)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • at 09:30 AM in Department R, Brian F. Gasdia, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (motions in limine) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • Order (re: plaintiff's motion in Limine no. 2 to exclude evidence of collateral source benefits)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • Objection (defendant objection and opposition to plaintiff Amada Cordero's notice to appear at trial)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • Objection (Defendant's objection and opposition to plaintiff amadacordero's notice to appear at trial for person most knowledge)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • Opposition (defendants opposition to plaintiff's motion in limine no. 5 to exclude evidence of medical conditions/diseases of Plaintiffs)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • Order (order granting motion in limine #5 to preclude defendant from introducing evidence of medical conditions/diseases of plaintiff that are unrelated to this action)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • Motion in Limine (Plaintiff's motion in limine No. 5 to exclude evidence of medical conditions/diseases of plaintiff that are unrelated to this action)

    Read MoreRead Less
56 More Docket Entries
  • 05/18/2017
  • Notice; Filed by AMADA, CORDERO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2017
  • Notice; Filed by CATWALK TO SIDEWALK, INC., a California Corporation (Defendant); ROBIN K. INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2017
  • Answer to First Amended Complaint; Filed by CATWALK TO SIDEWALK, INC., a California Corporation (Defendant); ROBIN K. INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2017
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by AMADA, CORDERO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2017
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by AMADA, CORDERO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2017
  • First Amended Complaint; Filed by AMADA, CORDERO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by AMADA, CORDERO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2017
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by AMADA, CORDERO (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: VC066042    Hearing Date: March 05, 2020    Dept: SEC

CORDERO v. CATWALK TO SIDEWALK, INC.

CASE NO.: VC066042

HEARING: 03/05/2020

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

#10

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff AMANDA CORDERO’s Motion Objecting to the Sufficiency and Amount of Corporate Surety/Undertaking and/or Bond is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give Notice.

The Court notes that it has received and considered Defendant CATWALK TO SIDEWALK, INC.’s Opposition.

“Unless an undertaking is given, the perfecting of an appeal shall not stay enforcement of the judgment or order in the trial court…. (b) The undertaking shall be on condition that if the judgment or order or any part of it is affirmed or the appeal is withdrawn or dismissed, the party ordered to pay shall pay the amount of the judgment or order, or part of it as to which the judgment or order is affirmed…. The undertaking shall be for double the amount of the judgment or order unless given by an admitted surety insurer in which event it shall be for one and one-half times the amount of the judgment or order.” (CCP §917.1(a-b).)

On February 14, 2020, the Court entered an augment money judgment in the amount of $467,106.20. Pursuant to CCP §917.1(b), the minimum required surety amount for Plaintiff’s augmented judgment at 1.5 times is $700,659.30.

In Opposition, Defendant argues that the Motion should be denied, or in the alternative, that Defendant be provided additional time, beyond five days to obtain additional undertaking. “Upon the determination the court shall order that a sufficient new, additional, or supplemental bond be given within a reasonable time not less than five days.” (CCP §996.010(c).)

The Motion is granted. Defendant is ORDERED to execute an additional corporate surety in the minimum amount of $233,553.10 within the reasonable time of 15 days.