On 03/21/2017 JAMES DUTTON filed an Other lawsuit against RODOCA MARINESCU. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LISA HART COLE, NANCY L. NEWMAN and DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Santa Monica Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
LISA HART COLE
NANCY L. NEWMAN
DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB
CORNISH MAXWELL GEORGE
FORMER ATTORNEY BARRY E. COHEN
WELLS FARGO BANK N.A
STAUB D. JOSHUA
STAUB DAVID JOSHUA
COHEN BARRY E.
COHEN BARRY EDWARD
WALDEN RICHARD E.
8/13/2018: Notice of Ruling
7/8/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
2/28/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
9/25/2020: Response - RESPONSE TO MOTION TO TAX
10/9/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
4/21/2017: Proof of Personal Service
8/28/2018: Minute Order
9/19/2018: Affidavit - AFFIDAVIT OF D. JOSHUA STAUB INITIATING INDIRECT CONTEMPT PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIV. PRO. 1211 AGAINST RODICA MARINESCU; TABLE OF EXHIBITS
10/5/2018: Objection - (Evidentiary) to Portions of the Declaration of Rodica Marinescu Executed on 10/02/18
10/9/2018: Minute Order - (Ex-Parte Proceedings for continuance of all proceedings until...)
10/31/2018: Opposition - Opposition to Notice of Motion and Motion for Evidentiary Sanctions; A Terminating Sanction and Monetary Sanctions of $8,287 against Rodica Marinescu Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 2
11/7/2018: Opposition - Opposition to Ex Parte
2/4/2019: Case Management Statement
2/11/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
3/14/2019: Objection - OBJECTION OBJECTION TO THE 3/7/19 WALDEN DECLARATION
4/12/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
5/7/2019: Notice - PLAINTIFF JAMES DUTTON'S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HEARING
Hearing06/03/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department M at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Case Management ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing06/03/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department M at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Hearing on Motion to ConsolidateRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's MotionRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion to Consolidate - Not Held - Continued - Court's MotionRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 2:04 PM in Department M; Non-Appearance Case ReviewRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice (of continuance); Filed by James Dutton (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by James Dutton (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by James Dutton (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Intent to Appear by Telephone; Filed by James Dutton (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketOrder (RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER & ORDER FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF ATTACHMENT (SIGNED BY JUDGE LISA HART COLE) ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketEx-Parte Application (FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER & ORDER FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF ATTACHMENT ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketEx Parte Right to Attach Order and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment (Resident); Filed by James Dutton (Plaintiff); Patricia Dutton (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by James Dutton (Plaintiff); Patricia Dutton (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by James Dutton (Plaintiff); Patricia Dutton (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint FiledRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice (OF NONOPPOSITION TO HIS "PLAINTIFF JAMES DUTTON'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY, ISSUE, TERMINATING, AND MONETARY SANCTION OF $1,282 AGAINST RODICA MARINESCU ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: SC127259 Hearing Date: October 09, 2020 Dept: M
CASE NAME: James Dutton, et al v. Rodica Marinescu, et al
CASE NO.: SC127259
MOTION: Motion to Vacate July 25, 2018 Order Deeming RFAs Admitted
HEARING DATE: 10/9/2020
Defendant Rodica Marinescu seeks to vacate an order deeming the RFAs admitted. This order was entered on July 25, 2018. (See 7/25/2018 Order.) Marinescu appeared at this hearing. (See id.) Marinescu brought this motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 seeking relief based on excusable neglect arguing that she failed to reply to the RFAs due to an illness and a hospital stay.
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), an application for relief must be made no more than six months after entry of the order from which relief is sought, and must be accompanied by an affidavit of fault attesting to the moving party’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b); English v. IKON Business Solutions (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 143.) “Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).).
Under the discretionary provision of section 473(b), a court “may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (Fasuyi v. Permatex, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 681, 694.) This part of section 473 is recognized as invoking the trial court's discretion, and the judgment of the trial court “‘shall not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse.’” (Ibid. quoting [Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Group, Inc. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 249, 254, 257.])
Plaintiffs October 2, 2020, evidentiary objections are overruled as untimely. Plaintiffs filed an opposition in March and failed to include evidentiary objections.
Request for judicial notice
Plaintiffs request judicial notice of Exhibits 1-21. Marinescu partially opposes judicial notice of Exhibit 6. Marinescu argues that the receipts attached to the Proof of Service with Exhibit 6 are not judicially noticeable under Evidence Code sections 451 or 452. In reply, Plaintiffs argue that the receipts are judicially noticeable by other courts. Here, the receipts show proof of mailing. The Court is satisfied that the receipts can be judicially noticed under the official acts portion of Evidence Code section 452. Therefore, the request for judicial notice is GRANTED.
This motion was filed on August 28, 2018. Plaintiffs argue that this motion is untimely because the motion is a discovery motion and it was not heard within 15 days of August 2, 2019. Plaintiff notes that the initial trial date in this matter was set for August 12, 2019. (See RJN Ex. 4 at page 35.) At the case management conference, the Court set a trial date for August 12, 2019, estimating 5 days. (Id.) The Court also set the final status conference for August 9, 2019. (Id. at 36.) The minute order also noted that Plaintiff was to provide notice, which Plaintiffs did. (See RJN Ex. 5.)
Section 2024.020 provides, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020(a).) In addition, “[e]xcept as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.” Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020(b).)
Here, fifteen days before August 12, 2019 was on July 28, 2019. While Plaintiff seeks relief under Section 473(b) from an order entered against her on July 25, 2018, that order concerns discovery. Since the motion was not brought forth to be heard before Friday, July 26, 2019, the motion is DENIED.
Case Number: SC127259 Hearing Date: September 30, 2020 Dept: M
CASE NAME: James Dutton, et al. v. Rodoca Marinescu, et al.
CASE NUMBER: SC127259
MOTION: Plaintiffs’ Motion for trial preference
HEARING DATE: 9/30/2020
“A party to a civil action who is over 70 years of age may petition the court for a preference, which the court shall grant if the court makes both of the following findings: (1) The party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole [and] (2) The health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party's interest in the litigation.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 36(a)[emphasis added]; Fox v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 533)
Plaintiffs seek trial preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36(a) and (e). Defendant has not opposed this motion. Plaintiffs request that the court set a trial date within 120 days of the remittitur in appeal B305386.
Plaintiffs argue that the court should grant their motion for trial preference because of their age and their health conditions. James Dutton is 85 years old, and Patricia Dutton is 81 years old. (Staub Decl. ¶. 5.) Plaintiffs present evidence through the declaration of Mrs. Dutton’s doctor that her health is declining. (See Carroll, M.D.’s Decl.) Dr. Carroll states that Mrs. Dutton has suffered two strokes and currently suffers from severe depression. (Id. ¶ 12.) Dr. Carrol also expressed concern that Patricia Dutton is at risk of developing memory loss. (Id. ¶ 14.) As of the filing of the motion, James Dutton is in the hospital recovering from a broken femur. (Staub Decl. ¶ 5.)
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have met their burden in demonstrating that they have a substantial interest in the action as a whole and that both Plaintiffs have health issues such that the preference is necessary to prevent prejudice to Plaintiffs’ interests in the litigation. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 36(a), upon meeting their burden, trial preference is mandatory. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ request for trial preference is GRANTED. Once a remittitur is set in appeal B305386, the Court will set a trial date.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases