Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/05/2019 at 09:55:12 (UTC).

CRUZ A ORTEGA VS ROGER A PEREZ GOMEZ ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/13/2017 CRUZ A ORTEGA filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against ROGER A PEREZ GOMEZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JOHN P. DOYLE. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7707

  • Filing Date:

    04/13/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JOHN P. DOYLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Respondent

ORTEGA CRUZ A.

Defendants and Appellants

PEREZ GOMEZ ROGER A.

PEREZ GOMEZ ALEX

Defendants and Respondents

ALL PERSONS KNOWN AND UNKNOW CLAIMING

GOMEZ ALEX PEREZ

GOMEZ ROGER A. PEREZ

DOES 1 TO 100

PEREZ GOMEZ ROGER A.

PEREZ GOMEZ ALEX

ORTEGA CRUZ A.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BAZAN JOHN F. ESQ.

BAZAN JOHN FAUSTINO ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

GARCIA ERICK

GARCIA HERNANDEZ ERICK G

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

8/9/2018: Minute Order

DEFENDANT ROGER PEREZ GOMEZ WITNESS LIST

8/27/2018: DEFENDANT ROGER PEREZ GOMEZ WITNESS LIST

DEFENDANT, ROGER PEREZ GOMEZ AMENDED WITNESS LIST

8/27/2018: DEFENDANT, ROGER PEREZ GOMEZ AMENDED WITNESS LIST

DEFENDANT, ALEX. PEREZ GOMEZ AMENDED EXHIBITS LIST

8/27/2018: DEFENDANT, ALEX. PEREZ GOMEZ AMENDED EXHIBITS LIST

DEFENDANT ROGER PEREZ GOMEZ EXHIBIT LIST

8/27/2018: DEFENDANT ROGER PEREZ GOMEZ EXHIBIT LIST

DEFENDANT, ALEX. PEREZ GOMEZ EXHIBITS LIST

8/27/2018: DEFENDANT, ALEX. PEREZ GOMEZ EXHIBITS LIST

Minute Order

8/29/2018: Minute Order

STIPULATION RE STATEMENT OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES; ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT

8/29/2018: STIPULATION RE STATEMENT OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES; ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

10/25/2018: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Minute Order

10/25/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

3/25/2019: Unknown

Unknown

3/25/2019: Unknown

Unknown

4/2/2019: Unknown

Unknown

4/4/2019: Unknown

Minute Order

2/6/2018: Minute Order

COMPLAINT FOR: (1) FRAUD ;ETC

4/13/2017: COMPLAINT FOR: (1) FRAUD ;ETC

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

5/22/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

5/22/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

42 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/25/2019
  • Appeal - Notice of Default Issued; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • Appeal - Notice of Default Issued; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103 ("Roger"); Filed by Roger A. Perez Gomez (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103 ("R" "Alex"); Filed by Alex Perez Gomez (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal ("Roger"); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal ("R"); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • Appeal - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed; Filed by Roger A. Perez Gomez (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • Appeal - Notice of Appeal/Cross Appeal Filed ("R"); Filed by Alex Perez Gomez (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2019
  • Memorandum of Costs (Summary); Filed by Cruz A. Ortega (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Non-Appearance Case Review (to confirm receipt of proposed judgment) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
86 More Docket Entries
  • 05/22/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2017
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2017
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR: (1) FRAUD ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Cruz A. Ortega (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC657707    Hearing Date: December 02, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: December 2, 2020

Case Name: Ortega v. Gomez, et al.

Case No.: BC657707

Matter: Motion to Execute Grant Deed

Moving Party: Plaintiff Cruz A. Ortega

Responding Party: Defendants Roger Perez Gomez and Alex Perez Gomez


Tentative Ruling: The Motion is granted.


On January 28, 2019, the Court entered a judgment as follows: (1) Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Cruz A. Ortega is to reimburse Defendants/Cross-Complainants Roger A. Perez Gomez and Alex Perez Gomez $38,652.84 for out of pocket expenses; (2) Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant is not liable for fraud to Defendants/Cross-Complainants; (3) concurrently upon Plaintiff paying $38,652.84, Defendants shall execute grant deeds conveying their interest in the real property located at 6317-6319 S. San Pedro Street, Los Angeles, California 90030 to Plaintiff; and (4) either party may seek fees or costs.

Because Defendants have apparently failed to comply with the judgment in this action, Plaintiff seeks to enforce the judgment by having an elisor appointed to execute a grant deed for the subject property. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks for the Court or Court Clerk to execute a grant deed conveying the subject property to Plaintiff. Plaintiff provides that it is ready and willing to tender money under the judgment to Defendants. Plaintiff contends he need only tender $29,999.84 in exchange for a grant deed to be executed because he filed a memorandum of costs on February 11, 2019, for $8,653.

Code Civ. Proc. § 128(a) provides in relevant part, “Every court shall have the power to . . . compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process, and to the orders of a judge out of court, in an action or proceeding pending therein.”

Defendants have not substantively opposed the instant Application. Defendants merely argue that an ex parte application is inappropriate, but this is now moot given that the Court set the Application for a regular hearing.

Because Defendants have not complied with the judgment in this action, the Court orders the Court Clerk to execute a grant deed conveying the subject property to Plaintiff. (Blueberry Properties, LLC v. Chow (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1021; Rayan v. Dykeman (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1629, 1635 [“As to the appointment of the elisor, to compel obedience to its orders the court is authorized to make such an appointment.”].) This order is contingent on Plaintiff tendering $29,999.84 to Defendants at the Motion hearing or else depositing such sums with the Court for Defendants to later claim.

In sum, the Motion is granted.

Case Number: BC657707    Hearing Date: November 05, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: November 5, 2020

Case Name: Ortega v. Gomez, et al.

Case No.: BC657707

Matter: Motion to Execute Grant Deed

Moving Party: Plaintiff Cruz A. Ortega

Responding Party: Defendants Roger Perez Gomez and Alex Perez Gomez


Tentative Ruling: The Motion is granted.


On January 28, 2019, the Court entered a judgment as follows: (1) Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Cruz A. Ortega is to reimburse Defendants/Cross-Complainants Roger A. Perez Gomez and Alex Perez Gomez $38,652.84 for out of pocket expenses; (2) Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant is not liable for fraud to Defendants/Cross-Complainants; (3) concurrently upon Plaintiff paying $38,652.84, Defendants shall execute grant deeds conveying their interest in the real property located at 6317-6319 S. San Pedro Street, Los Angeles, California 90030 to Plaintiff; and (4) either party may seek fees or costs.

Because Defendants have apparently failed to comply with the judgment in this action, Plaintiff seeks to enforce the judgment by having an elisor appointed to execute a grant deed for the subject property. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks for the Court or Court Clerk to execute a grant deed conveying the subject property to Plaintiff. Plaintiff provides that it is ready and willing to tender money under the judgment to Defendants. Plaintiff contends he need only tender $29,999.84 in exchange for a grant deed to be executed because he filed a memorandum of costs on February 11, 2019, for $8,653.

Code Civ. Proc. § 128(a) provides in relevant part, “Every court shall have the power to . . . compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process, and to the orders of a judge out of court, in an action or proceeding pending therein.”

Defendants have not substantively opposed the instant Application. Defendants merely argue that an ex parte application is inappropriate, but this is now moot given that the Court set the Application for a regular hearing.

Because Defendants have not complied with the judgment in this action, the Court orders the Court Clerk to execute a grant deed conveying the subject property to Plaintiff. (Blueberry Properties, LLC v. Chow (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1021; Rayan v. Dykeman (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1629, 1635 [“As to the appointment of the elisor, to compel obedience to its orders the court is authorized to make such an appointment.”].) This order is contingent on Plaintiff tendering $29,999.84 to Defendants at the Motion hearing or else depositing such sums with the Court for Defendants to later claim.

In sum, the Motion is granted.

Case Number: BC657707    Hearing Date: August 25, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: August 25, 2020

Case Name: Ortega v. Gomez, et al.

Case No.: BC657707

Matter: Motion to Execute Grant Deed

Moving Party: Plaintiff Cruz A. Ortega

Responding Party: Defendants Roger Percz Gomez and Alex Perez Gomez


Tentative Ruling: The Motion is granted.


On January 28, 2019, the Court entered a judgment as follows: (1) Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Cruz A. Ortega is to reimburse Defendants/Cross-Complainants Roger A. Perez Gomez and Alex Perez Gomez $38,652.84 for out of pocket expenses; (2) Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant is not liable for fraud to Defendants/Cross-Complainants; (3) concurrently upon Plaintiff paying $38,652.84, Defendants shall execute grant deeds conveying their interest in the real property located at 6317-6319 S. San Pedro Street, Los Angeles, California 90030 to Plaintiff; and (4) either party may seek fees or costs.

Because Defendants have apparently failed to comply with the judgment in this action, Plaintiff seeks to enforce the judgment by having an elisor appointed to execute a grant deed for the subject property. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks for the Court or Court Clerk to execute a grant deed conveying the subject property to Plaintiff. Plaintiff provides that it is ready and willing to tender money under the judgment to Defendants. Plaintiff contends he need only tender $29,999.84 in exchange for a grant deed to be executed because he filed a memorandum of costs on February 11, 2019, for $8,653.

Code Civ. Proc. § 128(a) provides in relevant part, “Every court shall have the power to . . . compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and process, and to the orders of a judge out of court, in an action or proceeding pending therein.”

Defendants have not substantively opposed the instant Application. Defendants merely argue that an ex parte application is inappropriate, but this is now moot given that the Court set the Application for a regular hearing.

Because Defendants have not complied with the judgment in this action, the Court orders the Court Clerk to execute a grant deed conveying the subject property to Plaintiff. (Blueberry Properties, LLC v. Chow (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1021; Rayan v. Dykeman (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1629, 1635 [“As to the appointment of the elisor, to compel obedience to its orders the court is authorized to make such an appointment.”].) This order is contingent on Plaintiff tendering $29,999.84 to Defendants at the Motion hearing or else depositing such sums with the Court for Defendants to later claim.

In sum, the Motion is granted.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer BAZAN JOHN F