This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/04/2020 at 18:01:51 (UTC).

GREENTEK CONSTRUCTION INC VS NOHEMI PORTILLO

Case Summary

On 04/04/2018 GREENTEK CONSTRUCTION INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against NOHEMI PORTILLO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are TERESA A. BEAUDET and SAMANTHA JESSNER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0868

  • Filing Date:

    04/04/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

TERESA A. BEAUDET

SAMANTHA JESSNER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Cross Defendant

GREENTEK CONSTRUCTION INC.

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

PORTILLO NOHEMI

DOES 1-25

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

THALER JESSE J.

THALER JESSE JAMES

Defendant Attorney

GIRALDO ALEXANDER B

 

Court Documents

Cross-Complaint

1/22/2019: Cross-Complaint

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

3/6/2020: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION DEFENDANT NOHEMI PORTILLOS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DEADLINES; DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER B. GIRALDO IN SUPPORT THEREOF

5/6/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION DEFENDANT NOHEMI PORTILLOS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DEADLINES; DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER B. GIRALDO IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT NOHEMI PORTILLO'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DEADLINES.

5/7/2020: Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT NOHEMI PORTILLO'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL RELATED DEADLINES.

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)]

6/2/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)]

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DEEM ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, PROPOUNDED ON NOHEMI PORTILLO AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THEAMOUNT OF $1473.60 AGAINST NOHEMI PORTILLO

6/16/2020: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DEEM ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, PROPOUNDED ON NOHEMI PORTILLO AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THEAMOUNT OF $1473.60 AGAINST NOHEMI PORTILLO

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; TR...)

6/25/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; TR...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; TR...) OF 06/25/2020

6/25/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED; TR...) OF 06/25/2020

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT NOHEMI PORTILLOS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND CROSS-COMPLAINT AND ANSWER

7/30/2020: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT NOHEMI PORTILLOS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND CROSS-COMPLAINT AND ANSWER

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

7/19/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

Minute Order -

7/30/2018: Minute Order -

Minute Order - Minute Order (Status Conference)

12/4/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Status Conference)

Proof of Personal Service

1/7/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

2/5/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Minute Order - Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: re: submission of a new default judgm...)

3/6/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: re: submission of a new default judgm...)

Notice - NOTICE OF RULING AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

5/9/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF RULING AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Answer - ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

5/9/2019: Answer - ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

4/11/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

50 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/16/2020
  • Hearing09/16/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department 50 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2020
  • Hearing09/04/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department 50 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2020
  • Hearing08/28/2020 at 16:00 PM in Department 50 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2020
  • Hearing08/06/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 50 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2020
  • Hearing08/06/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 50 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Cross Complaint and Answer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2020
  • DocketReply (Defendant Nohemi Portillos Reply To Plaintiffs Opposition To Defendants Motion For Leave To Amend Cross-Complaint And Answer); Filed by Nohemi Portillo (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/17/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2020
  • Docketat 4:00 PM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review (lodging trial readiness and exhibit binder) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
80 More Docket Entries
  • 04/12/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • DocketDeclaration re: Due Diligence; Filed by Greentek Construction, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Greentek Construction, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Greentek Construction, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Greentek Construction, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC700868    Hearing Date: August 05, 2020    Dept: 50

 

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

greentek construction, inc.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

nohemi portillo, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 700868

Hearing Date:

August 6, 2020

Hearing Time:

10:00 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND CROSS-COMPLAINT AND ANSWER

Background

Plaintiff Greentek Construction, Inc. (“Greentek”) filed this action on April 4, 2018 against Defendant Nohemi Portillo (“Portillo”). The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on December 6, 2018, and alleges causes of action for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien arising out of a residential construction project. On January 22, 2019, Portillo filed her Answer and a Cross-Complaint against Greentek. The Answer asserts 17 affirmative defenses, and the Cross-Complaint asserts one cause of action for breach of contract.

Portillo now moves for leave to amend both her Answer and her Cross-Complaint. Greentek opposes.

Discussion

Pursuant to Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.” Amendment may be allowed at any time before or after commencement of trial. ((Code Civ. Proc., § 576.) “[T]he court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428 (internal citations omitted).) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend….” (Morgan v. Sup. Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Prejudice includes “delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation.” (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments. ((Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) The motion must also state what allegations are proposed to be deleted or added, by page, paragraph, and line number. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a).) Finally, a separate supporting declaration specifying the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier must also accompany the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.134(b).)

Portillo seeks to add a number of new causes of action to her Cross-Complaint, including a cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, fraudulent inducement, violations of Civil Code section 1689.5 et seq., violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code section 1750 et seq.), violations of Civil Code section 7150 et seq., violations of Civil Code section 7160 et seq., revocation of contractor’s license pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 7106, violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., and declaratory relief. (Giraldo Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Portillo also seeks to amend her Answer to include defenses that bar recovery by a contractor who contracts in violation of applicable contracting statutes and common law defenses such as excuse of performance. (Giraldo Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. C.)

Although not set forth in a separate declaration, Portillo asserts that her failure to include the additional causes of action and additional affirmative defenses was the result of her lack of representation at the time the original Cross-Complaint and Answer were filed. Portillo has since retained counsel. Portillo also contends that the proposed amendments all arise out of the same transaction and the same contract that formed the basis of the original Cross-Complaint as well as Greentek’s contract claims.

Greentek contends that Portillo’s proposed new causes of action are not viable, but the Court does not find this sufficient reason to deny the motion. ((See Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [“the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings”].) Greentek also argues that the proposed amended Answer is captioned as an answer to a personal injury complaint when this is not a personal injury action. That clearly appears to be an inadvertent typing error, and so the Court does not find that it is reason to deny the motion. Greentek argues that Portillo has been dilatory, that Portillo has been an active party to this litigation since March 2019 when Portillo moved to set aside her default, and that the instant motion was filed just three court days before the original trial date. But as noted by Portillo, the trial date has been vacated. In any event, trial is likely to be scheduled for 2021, which will provide the parties sufficient time to conduct discovery on Portillo’s cross-claims. Lastly, Greentek argues that if leave to amend is granted, conditions should be imposed such that Greentek is compensated for the inconvenience of having to undertake additional discovery. The Court declines to impose such conditions.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Portillo’s motion is granted.

The Court orders Portillo to file and serve her Amended Answer and her First Amended Cross-Complaint within three days of the date of this order.

Portillo is ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED: August 6, 2020

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

Case Number: BC700868    Hearing Date: July 08, 2020    Dept: 50

 

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

greentek construction, inc.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

nohemi portillo, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 700868

Hearing Date:

June 25, 2020

Hearing Time:

2:00 p.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION TO DEEM ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, PROPOUNDED ON NOHEMI PORTILLO AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1473.60 AGAINST NOHEMI PORTILLO

Background

Plaintiff Greentek Construction, Inc. (“Greentek”) filed this action on April 4, 2018 against Defendant Nohemi Portillo (“Portillo”). The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on December 6, 2018.

On January 24, 2020, Greentek propounded Request for Admissions, Set One to Portillo. (Thaler Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1.) Portillo failed to provide a response. (Thaler Decl., ¶ 5.) Accordingly, Greentek now moves for an order deeming the truth of the matters specified in Request for Admissions, Set One admitted. Greentek also seeks imposition of monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,473.60. (Thaler Decl., ¶ 8.) Portillo opposes.

Discussion

If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the requesting party may move for an order that the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) Responses to interrogatories, requests for admission, and inspection demands must be signed under oath unless the responses contain only objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, 2031.250, 2033.240.) “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

However, if the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response that is substantially Code-compliant, the motion may not be granted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) “[A] responding party’s service of a tardy proposed RFA response that is substantially code-compliant will defeat a deemed admitted motion.” (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 778.)

“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction . . . on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

On May 6, 2020, Portillo served verified responses to the Request for Admissions. (Giraldo Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. C.) Portillo argues that monetary sanctions are not warranted because Greentek failed to meet and confer with Portillo prior to filing the motion, knowing that Portillo was self-represented at the time. Portillo further argues that Greentek refused to take this motion off calendar after Portillo retained counsel. Nevertheless, Portillo does not dispute that she received the Request for Admissions and that she failed to respond in a timely manner. Moreover, there is no requirement to meet and confer before the filing of a motion to deem matters admitted. Thus, the Court finds that a motion to deem the matters admitted was necessitated by Portillo’s failure to respond and monetary sanctions are mandatory.

Portillo requests that the monetary sanctions be reduced to the $73.60 filing fee because she currently is unemployed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and she has obtained a waiver of court fees in this case. (Giraldo Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. D.) However, Portillo has not proffered any testimony as to her unemployment; her counsel has no personal knowledge of that matter. The Court does take judicial notice of the fee waiver. Greentek requests sanctions in the amount of $1,473.60, reflecting 2 hours of attorney time in preparing the motion, 1 hour to review any opposition and prepare a reply, and 1 hour to appear telephonically at the hearing, at the rate of $350 per hour, plus the $73.60 filing fee. (Thaler Decl., ¶ 8.) The Court notes that Portillo did not serve her verified responses until May 6, 2020, the day the motion was filed, although the parties discussed that possibility on April 27 2020 (Giraldo Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5.) In light of the facts presented to the Court, the Court finds that a reasonable amount of sanctions is $773.60.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Greentek’s motion is denied as moot.

The Court orders Defendant Nohemi Portillo to pay monetary sanctions to Greentek of $773.60 within 30 days of the date of this order.

Greentek is ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED: July 8, 2020

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court