This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/27/2019 at 03:09:26 (UTC).

CHRISTINE M. WEBER VS JAMES BRUCE TAYLOR

Case Summary

On 03/23/2018 CHRISTINE M WEBER filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against JAMES BRUCE TAYLOR. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARC D. GROSS and GERALD ROSENBERG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9036

  • Filing Date:

    03/23/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Santa Monica Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MARC D. GROSS

GERALD ROSENBERG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

WEBER CHRISTINE M.

Defendants

TAYLOR JAMES BRUCE

BURCH WENDY

TAYLOR BRUCE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

FISHER HOWARD S.

FISHER HOWARD SCOTT

Defendant Attorneys

BALL LAW FIRM THE

MILLER DAVID SCOTT

DAGRELLA LAW FIRM P.C.

SEVERO MICHAEL VINCENT

 

Court Documents

Complaint

3/23/2018: Complaint

Legacy Document

4/13/2018: Legacy Document

Declaration

7/19/2018: Declaration

Notice of Motion

7/19/2018: Notice of Motion

Substitution of Attorney

8/6/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Minute Order

9/20/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Rejection - Fax Filing

10/11/2018: Notice of Rejection - Fax Filing

Reply

11/14/2018: Reply

Notice

11/27/2018: Notice

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

4/25/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice

4/26/2019: Notice

Notice of Lodging

4/29/2019: Notice of Lodging

Minute Order

5/2/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

5/3/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

6/12/2019: Minute Order

Substitution of Attorney

6/17/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Stipulation and Order

6/27/2019: Stipulation and Order

Notice

7/17/2019: Notice

35 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/17/2019
  • Notice (OF ENTRY OF - OTHER ORDER STIP RE TRIAL DATES AND OTHER MATTERS); Filed by CHRISTINE M. WEBER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (STIPULATION RE TRIAL DATES AND PROPOSED ORDER THEREON); Filed by CHRISTINE M. WEBER (Plaintiff); JAMES BRUCE TAYLOR (Defendant); WENDY BURCH (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by WENDY BURCH (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2019
  • at 10:30 AM in Department R, Marc D. Gross, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2019
  • Notice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by CHRISTINE M. WEBER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Informal Discovery Conference (IDC))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • at 11:30 AM in Department R, Marc D. Gross, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Party's Request for Informal D...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by JAMES BRUCE TAYLOR (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Proof of Service - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by JAMES BRUCE TAYLOR (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
50 More Docket Entries
  • 05/14/2018
  • Answer; Filed by WENDY BURCH (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2018
  • Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt; Filed by CHRISTINE M. WEBER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2018
  • Ntc and Acknowledgement of Receipt; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by CHRISTINE M. WEBER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by CHRISTINE M. WEBER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2018
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2018
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2018
  • Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC129036    Hearing Date: August 10, 2020    Dept: P

 

Tentative Ruling

Christine M. Weber v. James Bruce Taylor, Case No. SC129036

Hearing Date August 10, 2020

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint

Plaintiff seeks to add a new cause of action for securities fraud. The proposed amendment does not add new defendants or factual allegations. On July 7, 2020 the court issued a tentative ruling granting the motion. The court did not adopt the tentative to allow defendants to file an opposition by July 17, 2020. Defendants failed to comply with this due date, filing an opposition on July 20, 2020. In the interests of justice, the court will consider this untimely opposition but warns defendants that further late filings will be disregarded.

There is a strong public policy in California in favor of amending pleadings if the non-amending party is not prejudiced. Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939. A motion for leave to amend can be denied if the moving party has delayed unreasonable in seeking to amend, or if the proposed amendment fails to state a cause of action. Id., Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.

Plaintiff argues there will be no prejudice to defendants if the motion is granted, since a trial date has not been scheduled, there are no new factual allegations in the proposed amendment and no depositions have been taken. Defendants argue the motion should be denied since the action was initially filed in 2018. Additionally, defendants allege the proposed amendment would cause prejudice by expanding the issues and requiring additional discovery. Plaintiff adequately explained the delay, attributing it to information discovered in February 2020. Further, the court disagrees that any substantial prejudice will result, given that the new claim relies on the same facts as the initial complaint and no trial date is scheduled. GRANTED.

DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO AVOID IN-PERSON APPEARANCES AND TO APPEAR REMOTELY. LA COURT CONNECT IS NOW AVAILABLE.

Case Number: SC129036    Hearing Date: July 07, 2020    Dept: P

 

Tentative Ruling

Christine M. Weber v. James Bruce Taylor, Case No. SC129036

Hearing Date July 7, 2020

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (UNOPPOSED)

Background/Analysis

There is a strong public policy in California in favor of amending pleadings if the non-amending party is not prejudiced. Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.

Plaintiff seeks to add a new cause of action for securities fraud. Motion at page 6. Defendant does not oppose the motion. Notice of non-opposition at pg. 1. There is no evidence suggesting the amendment would prejudice defendant.

GRANTED.

BECAUSE OF THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO AVOID IN-PERSON APPEARANCES AT COURT AND TO APPEAR VIA COURT CALL WHENEVER POSSIBLE.