This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/15/2019 at 00:31:42 (UTC).

GLADYS OCHOA ET AL VS TOUCH-TEL USA LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/26/2018 a Contract - Business case was filed by GLADYS OCHOA against TOUCH-TEL USA LLC in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4079

  • Filing Date:

    04/26/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Business

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

OCHOA GLADYS

BRISENO GLORIA

Respondents and Defendants

VERITAS PREPAID PHONE CO LLC

TOUCH-TEL USA LLC

DOES 1 TO 10

MOBILES UNLIMITED

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF ERRATA REGARDING NAMED PLAINTIFF GLADYS FLORES, FORMERLY KNOWN AS GLADYS OCHOA

4/30/2018: NOTICE OF ERRATA REGARDING NAMED PLAINTIFF GLADYS FLORES, FORMERLY KNOWN AS GLADYS OCHOA

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

5/3/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Case Management Statement

11/5/2018: Case Management Statement

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

11/27/2018: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Proof of Personal Service

12/4/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Clerk's Notice of Voiding of Filing

12/18/2018: Clerk's Notice of Voiding of Filing

Case Management Order

1/7/2019: Case Management Order

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

3/18/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

3/21/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

3/21/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order

4/10/2019: Minute Order

Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

5/17/2019: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

5/17/2019: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

6/17/2019: Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Minute Order

6/17/2019: Minute Order

Order

6/17/2019: Order

Notice of Related Cases

4/26/2018: Notice of Related Cases

SUMMONS

4/26/2018: SUMMONS

24 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/10/2019
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Gloria Briseno (Plaintiff); Gladys Ochoa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2019
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Woojin Telecom (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (Defendant Woojin Telecom) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Ruling-Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil; Filed by Woojin Telecom (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Woo...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by Jason John Kim (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil; Filed by Jason John Kim (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Woojin Telecom (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Woojin Telecom (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
31 More Docket Entries
  • 07/19/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-07-19 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2018
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2018
  • Notice; Filed by Gloria Briseno (Plaintiff); Gladys Ochoa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2018
  • NOTICE OF ERRATA REGARDING NAMED PLAINTIFF GLADYS FLORES, FORMERLY KNOWN AS GLADYS OCHOA

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR: (1) CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES ACT (CAL. CIV. CODE 1750) ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Gloria Briseno (Plaintiff); Gladys Ochoa (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2018
  • Notice of Related Cases

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC704079    Hearing Date: February 14, 2020    Dept: 47

Gladys Ochoa, et al. v. Touch-Tel USA, LLC, et al.

 

MOTION TO DISMISS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Amanul Syed

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No opposition on eCourt as of February 10, 2020.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Veritas Prepaid Phone Co., LLC, Mobiles Unlimited, and Woojin Telecom unlawfully sold them prepaid calling services via the “AmigoSinPin platform,” in violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the False Advertising Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500). They also allege that Defendants Veritas, Touch-Tel USA, LLC, and Woojin Telecom committed contempt and civil conspiracy and that all Defendants engaged in unfair competition.

Defendant Amanul Syed moves to dismiss.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Amanul Syed’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Motion To Dismiss

Defendant Amanul Syed moves to dismiss this lawsuit, although it appears that the motion was intended to be brought on behalf of Defendants Touch-Tel USA, LLC and Veritas Prepaid Phone Co. LLC.

To the extent that this motion was brought on behalf of Defendant Touch-Tel USA, LLC, this Defendant had not yet appeared in the action. Given that the motion appears to argue that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction, the Court will interpret this as a special appearance. (Slaybaugh v. Superior Court (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 216, 222 [“The test is – Did the party appear and object only to the consideration of the case or any procedure in it because the court had not acquired jurisdiction of the person of the defendant or party? If so, then the appearance is special. If, however, he appears and asks for any relief which could be given only to a party in a pending case, or which itself would be a regular proceeding in the case, it is a general appearance . . . .”].) The Court notes, however, that filing a motion to dismiss after the deadline to respond to the complaint does not prevent entry of default. (Cf. CCP § 418.10(d) [addressing motions to dismiss filed on or before the last day to plead].)

To the extent that this motion was brought on behalf of Defendant Veritas Prepaid Phone Co. LLC, it is improper, as this Defendant was defaulted on January 7, 2019.

More generally, as to any and all moving Defendants, all motions must be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities. (CRC 3.1113(a) [“A party filing a motion . . . must serve and file a supporting memorandum.”].) No such memorandum was filed here.

“The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion . . . is not meritorious and cause for its denial . . . .” (Ibid.) Here, the Court so construes this motion. Defendant has only presented factual allegations, with no legal or evidentiary support.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.

Moving party to provide notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2020 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org