This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 09:56:46 (UTC).

AMIR YAZDI ET AL VS ELITE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/03/2017 AMIR YAZDI filed a Property - Construction Defect lawsuit against ELITE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are HOWARD L. HALM and ROBERT B. BROADBELT. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8139

  • Filing Date:

    10/03/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Construction Defect

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

HOWARD L. HALM

ROBERT B. BROADBELT

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

YAZDI AMIR

YAZDI HANIA

Defendants and Respondents

ELITE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION INC

LAWRENCE WOODCRAFT & ASSOCIATES

BALIKIAN ANASTASIYA TIMOCHENKO

METBAKIAN GARY

WOODCRAFT ASTRA

BALIKIAN HAIK MIKE

WOODCRAFT LAWRENCE A.

QUALITY POOK AND SPA SERVICE

PETE KING PLASTERING

QUIJADA JUAN CARLOS

SURETEC INDEMNITY COMPANY

ORNAMENTAL LUXURIES

WESTCO INSURANCE COMPANY

HUDSON INSURANCE COMPANY

TREMCO INC.

VALLEY CUSTOM TILE & GRANITE INC.

ABARCA NELSON

ALEKSANYAN ROBERT

9 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

RETZ KIRK J. ESQ.

RETZ KIRK JAMES ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

HOROWITZ JEFFREY D. ESQ.

JEFFERY MONA J. ESQ.

CAMERON CLARK H.

SOSA CARLOS E. ESQ.

KOENIG RANDALL F. ESQ.

REISZ FREDERICK S. ESQ.

WHITE CHRISTOPHER A. ESQ.

PAGAN JOHN M.

BUCHANAN NATASHA K.

INAMINE BRIAN S. ESQ.

WOO AMBER N.

ROBINSON KENTON L.

KIM AMBER NICOLE

KOENIG RANDALL FRANCIS ESQ.

HOROWITZ JEFFREY DAVID ESQ.

WHITE CHRISTOPHER ALLEN ESQ.

BUCHANAN NATASHA KAMDAR

JEFFERY MONA JANE ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Separate Statement

5/24/2019: Separate Statement

Motion for Summary Judgment

5/24/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment

Declaration

5/24/2019: Declaration

Request for Judicial Notice

5/24/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

5/29/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Motion for Order

6/3/2019: Motion for Order

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

6/3/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Motion to Compel

6/3/2019: Motion to Compel

Motion to Compel

6/3/2019: Motion to Compel

Motion to Compel

6/3/2019: Motion to Compel

Motion for Order

6/4/2019: Motion for Order

Motion to Compel

6/4/2019: Motion to Compel

Declaration

6/12/2019: Declaration

Reply

6/19/2019: Reply

Reply

6/19/2019: Reply

Minute Order

6/25/2019: Minute Order

Order

6/25/2019: Order

Order

6/25/2019: Order

208 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/30/2019
  • Hearingat 10:00 AM in Department 53 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 53 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 53 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 53 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 53 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 53 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 53 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 53 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 53 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 53 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")

    Read MoreRead Less
381 More Docket Entries
  • 10/13/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by AMIR YAZDI (Plaintiff); HANIA YAZDI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by AMIR YAZDI (Plaintiff); HANIA YAZDI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/03/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1, NEGLIGENCE;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Suretec Indemnity Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: BC678139 Hearing Date: August 18, 2021 Dept: 53

\r\n\r\n

Superior Court of California

\r\n\r\n

County of Los Angeles – CENTRAL District

\r\n\r\n

Department\r\n53

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n

amir yazdi\r\n \r\n , et al.;

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n \r\n Plaintiffs,

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n

vs.

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n

elite coastal construction,\r\n inc.\r\n \r\n , et al.;

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n \r\n Defendants.

\r\n
\r\n

Case\r\n No.:

\r\n
\r\n

BC678139

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

Hearing\r\n Date:

\r\n
\r\n

August\r\n 18, 2021

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

Time:

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

10:00\r\n a.m.

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

[Tentative]\r\n Order RE:

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Elite Coastal Construction, Inc.,\r\nAnastasiya T. Balikian, and Haik Mike Balikian

\r\n\r\n

RESPONDING PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Motion for Leave to File\r\nCross-Complaint

\r\n\r\n

The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

BACKGROUND

\r\n\r\n

This is a construction\r\ndefect case arising out of homeowners retaining certain companies to remodel a\r\nhome, but the remodel work contained construction defects.

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiffs Amir Yazdi,\r\nHania Yazdi, and Amir and Hania Yazdi as Trustees of the Amir and Hania Yazdi\r\nLiving Trust Dated April 19, 2005 (collectively “Plaintiffs”), filed this\r\naction on October 3, 2017. Plaintiffs\r\nfiled the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on August 15, 2019.

\r\n\r\n

There have been several\r\nother Cross-Complaints filed.

\r\n\r\n

Defendants Elite Coastal Construction, Inc., Anastasiya T. Balikian,\r\nand Haik Mike Balikian (“Moving Defendants”) now move for leave to file a cross-complaint\r\nagainst several proposed cross-defendants: Gary Metbakian; Lawrence Woodcraft &\r\nAssociates; Lawrence A. Woodcraft; Astra Woodcraft; Quality Pool and Spa\r\nService; Robert Aleksanyan; Quijada Roofing, Inc.; Juan Carlos Quijada; Omar\r\nVasquez; A&O Electric; Luis Hernandez; Nelson Abarca; Pete King Plastering;\r\nValley Custom Tile & Granite, Inc.; O&B Pavers; Ornamental Luxuries;\r\nAlex Arciga; Tremco, Inc.; and Zoes 1 through 100. The proposed cross-complaint alleges four\r\ncauses of action: (1) equitable indemnity; (2) negligence; (3) contribution and\r\napportionment; and (4) declaratory relief.

\r\n\r\n

No opposition to the\r\nmotion has been filed.

\r\n\r\n

LEGAL\r\nSTANDARD

\r\n\r\n

Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50 provides:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(a) A party shall file a cross-complaint\r\nagainst any of the parties who filed the complaint or cross-complaint against\r\nhim or her before or at the same time as the answer to the complaint or\r\ncross-complaint.

\r\n\r\n

(b) Any other cross-complaint may be filed\r\nat any time before the court has set a date for trial.

\r\n\r\n

(c) A party shall obtain leave of court to\r\nfile any cross-complaint except one filed within the time specified in\r\nsubdivision (a) or (b). Leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any\r\ntime during the course of the action.

\r\n\r\n

A cross-complaint is compulsory when a related cause of action existed at\r\nthe time of serving the defendant’s answer to the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc.,\r\n§ 426.30, subd. (a).) A related cause of\r\naction is “a cause of action which arises out of the same transaction,\r\noccurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action\r\nwhich the plaintiff alleges in his complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.10, subd. (c).) The court must grant leave to file a\r\ncompulsory cross-complaint when the party who failed to file it acted in good\r\nfaith. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50.)

\r\n\r\n

“Cross-complaints for comparative equitable indemnity would appear\r\nvirtually always transactionally related to the main action.” (Time\r\nfor Living, Inc. v. Guy Hatfield Homes (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 30, 38.)

\r\n\r\n

DISCUSSION

\r\n\r\n

The court finds Moving\r\nDefendants’ proposed cross-complaint\r\narises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or\r\noccurrences as Plaintiffs’ FAC. Moving\r\nDefendants are seeking recovery\r\nof losses from proposed cross-defendants in the event Moving Defendants are found liable for Plaintiffs’\r\nclaims.

\r\n\r\n

The court finds the\r\nproposed cross-defendants will not be prejudiced by the granting of this motion\r\nbecause little discovery has been conducted (at least at the time the motion\r\nwas filed) and trial is now set for May 11, 2022. In addition, many of the proposed\r\ncross-defendants have been parties to this action since this action’s\r\ninception.

\r\n\r\n

In light of the lack of\r\nan opposition, there is no evidence before the court that this motion was filed\r\nin bad faith. Based on the evidence\r\npresented, the court finds that Moving Defendants have acted in good faith with\r\nrespect to filing their proposed cross-complaint.

\r\n\r\n

ORDER

\r\n\r\n

For\r\nthe reasons set forth above, defendants Elite Coastal Construction,\r\nInc., Anastasiya T. Balikian, and Haik Mike Balikian’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint is granted.

\r\n\r\n

The\r\ncourt orders that defendants Elite Coastal Construction, Inc.,\r\nAnastasiya T. Balikian, and Haik Mike Balikian have leave to file their cross-complaint within 7 days of the date of\r\nthis order.

\r\n\r\n

The\r\ncourt orders defendants Elite Coastal Construction, Inc., Anastasiya T.\r\nBalikian, and Haik Mike Balikian\r\nto give notice of this ruling.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

IT IS SO\r\nORDERED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

DATED: August 18, 2021

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

_____________________________

\r\n\r\n

Robert B.\r\nBroadbelt III

\r\n\r\n

Judge of\r\nthe Superior Court

\r\n\r\n'b'

Case Number: BC678139 Hearing Date: August 3, 2021 Dept: 53

\r\n\r\n

Superior Court of California

\r\n\r\n

County of Los Angeles – CENTRAL District

\r\n\r\n

Department\r\n53

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n

amir yazdi\r\n \r\n , et al.;

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n \r\n Plaintiffs,

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n

vs.

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n

elite coastal construction,\r\n inc.\r\n \r\n , et al.;

\r\n

\r\n

\r\n \r\n Defendants.

\r\n
\r\n

Case\r\n No.:

\r\n
\r\n

BC678139

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

Hearing\r\n Date:

\r\n
\r\n

August\r\n 3, 2021

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

Time:

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

10:00\r\n a.m.

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

[Tentative]\r\n Order RE:

\r\n

\r\n

(1) \r\n motion to deem the truth of matters specified in\r\n requests for admissions to plaintiff hania yazdi (set one) admitted and\r\n conclusively established, and request for monetary sanctions;

\r\n

\r\n

(2) \r\n motion for order compelling responses, without\r\n objections, to requests for production to plaintiff hania yazdi (set one), and\r\n request for MONETARY SANCTIONS;

\r\n

\r\n

(3) \r\n motion to compel answers, without objections, to special\r\n interrogatories to plaintiff hania Yazdi (Set one), and request for monetary\r\n sanctions; and

\r\n

\r\n

(4) \r\n motion to compel answers, without objections, to\r\n form interrogatories to plaintiff Hania Yazdi (set one), and request for\r\n monetary sanctions

\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Elite Coastal Construction, Inc.

\r\n\r\n

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Hania Yazdi

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n
  1. Motion\r\nto Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admissions to Plaintiff Hania\r\nYazdi (Set One) Admitted and Conclusively Established, and Request for Monetary\r\nSanctions;

  2. Motion\r\nfor Order Compelling Responses, Without Objections, to Requests for Production to\r\nPlaintiff Hania Yazdi (Set One), and Request for Monetary Sanctions;

  3. Motion\r\nto Compel Answers, Without Objections, to Special Interrogatories to Plaintiff\r\nHania Yazdi (Set One), and Request for Monetary Sanctions; and

  4. Motion\r\nto Compel Answers, Without Objections, to Form Interrogatories to Plaintiff\r\nHania Yazdi (Set One), and Request for Monetary Sanctions

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

The court considered the\r\nmoving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with each motion.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

BACKGROUND

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiffs Amir Yazdi and\r\nHania Yazdi (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action on October 3, 2017,\r\nagainst defendant Elite Coastal Construction, Inc. (“Elite”) and other defendants. Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended\r\nComplaint on August 15, 2019.

\r\n\r\n

Elite now moves for orders compelling plaintiff Hania Yazdi to serve responses\r\nto Elite’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and\r\nRequests for Production, Set One, as well as an order that the truth of the\r\nmatters specified in Elite’s Requests for Admission, Set One, be deemed\r\nadmitted.

\r\n\r\n

Elite served those discovery requests on plaintiff Hania Yazdi on July\r\n24, 2020, and despite a representation from plaintiff Hania Yazdi’s counsel\r\nthat responses were forthcoming, as of the date the motions were filed, plaintiff\r\nHania Yazdi had not served responses to any of the discovery requests. (Lauter Decl., ¶¶ 3-20.) Elite also requests that the court award it\r\n$582.50 in monetary sanctions for each motion against plaintiff Hania Yazdi.

\r\n\r\n

In opposition to the\r\nmotions, plaintiff Hania Yazdi has provided evidence that, after the motions\r\nwere filed, she served verified responses to each of Elite’s discovery requests. (Retz Decl., ¶¶ 2-5, Exs. A-D.)

\r\n\r\n

LEGAL\r\nSTANDARD

\r\n\r\n

If a party to whom interrogatories or an inspection demand are\r\ndirected fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for\r\nan order compelling responses without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§\r\n2030.290(b); 2031.300(b).) Where\r\na motion seeks only a response to an inspection demand, no showing of “good cause”\r\nis required. (Compare Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(b) with Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).)

\r\n\r\n

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(b), if a party to\r\nwhom requests for admissions are directed fails to serve a timely response, the\r\nrequesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents\r\nand the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as\r\nwell as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section\r\n2023.010). “Failure to timely respond to\r\nRFA does not result in automatic admissions. \r\nRather, the propounder of the RFA must ‘move for an order that the\r\ngenuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the\r\nrequests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction’ under §\r\n2023.010 et seq.” (Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial, ¶ 8:1370,\r\nciting Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(b).) \r\nThe court “shall” grant the motion to deem RFA admitted, “unless it\r\nfinds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has\r\nserved, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests\r\nfor admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).)

\r\n\r\n

DISCUSSION

\r\n\r\n

Because plaintiff Hania\r\nYazdi has now served responses to Elite’s request for production, special\r\ninterrogatories, and form interrogatories, the court denies Elite’s motions to\r\ncompel responses to those discovery requests as moot. However, the court does not find that\r\nplaintiff Hania Yazdi acted with substantial justification or that other\r\ncircumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. The court therefore grants Elite’s requests\r\nto impose monetary sanctions against plaintiff Hania Yazdi on Elite’s three\r\nmotions to compel responses to those discovery requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300,\r\nsubd. (c).)

\r\n\r\n

The court finds that\r\nplaintiff Hania Yazdi has served, before the hearing on Elite’s motion,\r\nresponses to Elite’s requests for admission that are in substantial compliance\r\nwith Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220. \r\nThe court therefore denies Elite’s motion for an order that the truth of\r\nany maters specified in Elite’s requests for admissions be deemed\r\nadmitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280,\r\nsubd. (c).) However, “[i]t is mandatory\r\nthat the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with\r\nSection 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a\r\ntimely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd.\r\n(c).)

\r\n\r\n

ORDER

\r\n\r\n

For the reasons set forth above, (1) the court denies defendant Elite Coastal\r\nConstruction, Inc.’s motions for orders compelling plaintiff Hania Yazdi to serve\r\nresponses to Elite’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories,\r\nSet One, and Requests for Production, Set One, and (2) the court denies defendant Elite Coastal\r\nConstruction, Inc.’s motion for an order that the truth of the matters specified in Elite’s\r\nRequests for Admission, Set One, be deemed admitted.

\r\n\r\n

The court grants defendant\r\nElite Coastal Construction, Inc.’s requests for monetary sanctions\r\nagainst plaintiff Hania Yazdi on\r\neach of the four motions. The\r\ncourt finds that $582.50 (2.75 hours x $190 per hour = $522.50 attorney’s fees,\r\nplus $60 motion filing fee) is a reasonable amount of sanctions to impose\r\nagainst plaintiff Hania Yazdi\r\non each of the four motions, for a total of $2,330 in monetary sanctions on all\r\nfour motions ($582.50 per motion x 4 motions = $2,330 total). The court therefore orders that plaintiff Hania Yazdi shall pay monetary\r\nsanctions in the total amount of $2,330 to defendant Elite Coastal\r\nConstruction, Inc. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c),\r\n2031.300, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).) \r\n

\r\n\r\n

The court orders defendant\r\nElite Coastal Construction, Inc. to give notice of this order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

IT IS SO\r\nORDERED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

DATED: August 3, 2021

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

_____________________________

\r\n\r\n

Robert B.\r\nBroadbelt III

\r\n\r\n

Judge of\r\nthe Superior Court

\r\n\r\n'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Tremco, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY A DELAWARE CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases where SURETEC INDEMNITY COMPANY A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases where Hudson Insurance Company is a litigant