This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/05/2019 at 01:09:11 (UTC).

JAMES BRITT VS. NICOLE TILLMAN, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 04/04/2018 a Property - Other Real Property case was filed by JAMES BRITT against NICOLE TILLMAN in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Compton Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9110

  • Filing Date:

    04/04/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Compton Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

MAURICE A. LEITER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

BRITT JAMES

Defendants

DAVIS ANDRE SYVON

QUICKEN LOANS INC.

TILLMAN NICOLE

Other

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

 

Court Documents

Unknown

3/5/2019: Unknown

Unknown

2/11/2019: Unknown

Notice of Lodging

1/31/2019: Notice of Lodging

Request for Judicial Notice

9/20/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Request for Judicial Notice

11/5/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Opposition

11/5/2018: Opposition

Minute Order

11/15/2018: Minute Order

Declaration

12/21/2018: Declaration

Other -

12/21/2018: Other -

Request for Judicial Notice

12/21/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

4/27/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

5/10/2018: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Minute Order

9/27/2018: Minute Order

Case Management Statement

8/29/2018: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

7/25/2018: Minute Order

Other -

7/25/2018: Other -

59 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Status Conference - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department M, Stephen M. Lowry, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by JAMES BRITT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • Declaration Pursuant to 585 CCP in Support of Default Judgment; Filed by JAMES BRITT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2019
  • Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by QUICKEN LOANS INC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2019
  • Notice of Lodging (Proposed Judgment); Filed by QUICKEN LOANS INC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
69 More Docket Entries
  • 04/27/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by JAMES BRITT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by JAMES BRITT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by JAMES BRITT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A; (Case Ordered Reassigned; Case Reassigned for all purposes) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2018
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by JAMES BRITT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by JAMES BRITT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: TC029110    Hearing Date: November 21, 2019    Dept: A

# 9. James Britt v. Nicole Tillman, et al.

Case No.: TC029110

Matter on calendar for: Leave to file Second Amended Complaint

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

    Plaintiff James Britt and Defendant Nicole Tillman are recently divorced. Britt alleges that the property at 629 W. Myrrh Ln., Compton, California 90020, was sold without his consent and below market value. He is seeking to quiet title. Defendant Andre Davis bought the property from Tillman. Davis later refinanced the property with a loan from defendant Quicken Loans. The Complaint includes causes of action for conversion and quiet title.

    Plaintiff now moves for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). The motion is opposed.

  2. Standard

Code of Civil Procedure §§ 473(a)(1) and 576 provide courts with the authority to allow the amendment of pleadings upon a showing of good cause and the absence of prejudice. California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b) requires that Plaintiff prepare a declaration specifying (i) the effect of the amendment, (ii) why the amendment is necessary, (iii) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and (iv) why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

In ruling on a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint, the Court generally considers whether the non-moving parties would face prejudice. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486–488.) Examples of prejudice include: delay in trial date, increased costs of preparation, increased burden of discovery, etc. (Id.) “If discovery and investigation develop factual grounds justifying a timely amendment to a pleading, leave to amend must be liberally granted.” (Mabie v. Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 581, 596.) California judicial policy generally favors permitting amendment to pleadings. (See Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.)

Denial of leave to amend is appropriate where (1) the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory; and (2) the delay has prejudiced the opposing party. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3rd 486, 490.)

  1. Analysis

This motion is procedurally improper. Plaintiff is attempting to remove Defendant Davis from the FAC and then file the SAC as to Davis only, with the intent to have two concurrently filed complaints. This is procedurally improper.

  1. Ruling

    The motion for leave to file a SAC is denied without prejudice.

    Next dates:

    Notice: