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
-
Case Number:
****6042
-
Filing Date:
01/05/2017
-
Case Status:
Pending - Other Pending
-
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
1/5/2017: Unknown
1/5/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet
1/5/2017: Notice of Case Management Conference
1/5/2017: Summons
2/14/2017: Unknown
2/24/2017: Unknown
2/24/2017: Unknown
3/10/2017: Unknown
4/14/2017: Unknown
5/18/2017: Unknown
5/25/2017: Case Management Statement
6/5/2017: Case Management Statement
6/12/2017: Minute Order
6/20/2017: Notice of Ruling
6/20/2017: Unknown
8/10/2017: Unknown
8/10/2017: Demand for Jury Trial
8/10/2017: Unknown
Docket Entries
- 02/19/2019
-
at 10:00 AM in Department R, Brian F. Gasdia, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation
- 02/19/2019
-
Minute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk
- 02/15/2019
-
Order (granting a continuance of trial)
- 12/05/2018
-
at 09:30 AM in Department R, Brian F. Gasdia, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (motions in limine) - Held
- 12/05/2018
-
Order (re: plaintiff's motion in Limine no. 2 to exclude evidence of collateral source benefits)
- 12/05/2018
-
Objection (defendant objection and opposition to plaintiff Amada Cordero's notice to appear at trial)
- 12/05/2018
-
Objection (Defendant's objection and opposition to plaintiff amadacordero's notice to appear at trial for person most knowledge)
- 12/05/2018
-
Opposition (defendants opposition to plaintiff's motion in limine no. 5 to exclude evidence of medical conditions/diseases of Plaintiffs)
- 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)
- 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)
- 05/18/2017
-
Notice; Filed by AMADA, CORDERO (Plaintiff)
- 04/14/2017
-
Notice; Filed by CATWALK TO SIDEWALK, INC., a California Corporation (Defendant); ROBIN K. INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California Corporation (Defendant)
- 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)
- 02/24/2017
-
Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by AMADA, CORDERO (Plaintiff)
- 02/24/2017
-
Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by AMADA, CORDERO (Plaintiff)
- 02/14/2017
-
First Amended Complaint; Filed by AMADA, CORDERO (Plaintiff)
- 01/05/2017
-
Summons; Filed by Plaintiff
- 01/05/2017
-
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk
- 01/05/2017
-
Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by AMADA, CORDERO (Plaintiff)
- 01/05/2017
-
Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by AMADA, CORDERO (Plaintiff)
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.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases