Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/18/2019 at 22:51:41 (UTC).

JONG JAE IM VS JESS ENRIQUEZ ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/20/2017 JONG JAE IM filed an Other lawsuit against JESS ENRIQUEZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JAMES C. CHALFANT and JOHN P. DOYLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0592

  • Filing Date:

    10/20/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

JAMES C. CHALFANT

JOHN P. DOYLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

ENRIQUEZ JESS

IM JONG JAE

SYNERGY INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC

MARTINEZ ANDRES

ENRIQUEZ PATRICIA

TRILOGY ESCROW INC.

A PLUS MAJESTIC INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

PRESTIGE DEFAULT SERVICES INCORPORATION

SHIN EUNY

WINDOW ROCK INVESTMENT OPERATIONS

DOES 1 TO 20

SYNERGY INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC

MARTINEZ ANDRES

CENTER STREET LENDING FUND IV SPE LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

HAM YOON O. ESQ.

HAM YOON OH ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

GHIDOTTI MICHELLE R. ESQ.

GUSSNER J. WALTER ESQ.

GHIDOTTI MICHELLE RENE ESQ.

VEIGUELA PETER J. ESQ.

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

WILLIAMS SHANNON CAROL

Cross Defendant Attorney

TAHIM THAKUR PAMELA

 

Court Documents

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

2/27/2018: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

3/6/2018: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

4/30/2018: OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

DECLARATION OF SHANNON C. WILLIAMS REGARDING MEET AND CONFER IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (C.C.P. SECTION 430.41)

7/20/2018: DECLARATION OF SHANNON C. WILLIAMS REGARDING MEET AND CONFER IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (C.C.P. SECTION 430.41)

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY WINDOW ROCK INVESTMENT OPERATIONS, LLC

8/14/2018: OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT BY WINDOW ROCK INVESTMENT OPERATIONS, LLC

DEFENDANT WINDOW ROCK'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

8/21/2018: DEFENDANT WINDOW ROCK'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

RULING: THE DEMURRERS ARE OVERRULED. THE MOTIONS TO STRIKE ARE DENIED.

8/29/2018: RULING: THE DEMURRERS ARE OVERRULED. THE MOTIONS TO STRIKE ARE DENIED.

ANSWER (GENERAL DENIAL) BY DEFENDANT WINDOW ROCK INVESTMENT OPERATIONS, LLC TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

9/5/2018: ANSWER (GENERAL DENIAL) BY DEFENDANT WINDOW ROCK INVESTMENT OPERATIONS, LLC TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Unknown

9/18/2018: Unknown

Summons

4/26/2019: Summons

Cross-Complaint

4/26/2019: Cross-Complaint

Proof of Service by Mail

5/10/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Notice

5/21/2019: Notice

Notice

5/21/2019: Notice

Minute Order

5/29/2019: Minute Order

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

6/5/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Minute Order

1/19/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

1/3/2018: Unknown

103 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/17/2019
  • Reply ( to Opposition to Demurrer to Center Street's Cross-Complaint); Filed by Trilogy Escrow, Inc. (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2019
  • Opposition (Cross-Complainants Center Street Lending Fund IV SPE, LLC and Prestige Default Services' Opposition to Cross-Defendant Trilogy Escrow, Inc.'s Demurrer to First Amended Cross-Complaint); Filed by CENTER STREET LENDING FUND IV SPE, LLC (Defendant); PRESTIGE DEFAULT SERVICES INCORPORATION (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 58; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by WINDOW ROCK INVESTMENT OPERATIONS (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Proof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by WINDOW ROCK INVESTMENT OPERATIONS (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 58; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (of Doe Defendants) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 58; Conference (Re Mediation) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 58; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (of Cross-Claims of Parties Who Fail to Appear) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 58; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
150 More Docket Entries
  • 10/24/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2017
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2017
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2017
  • COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by JESS ENRIQUEZ (Plaintiff); JONG JAE IM (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2017
  • Declaration; Filed by JONG JAE IM (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC680592    Hearing Date: April 9, 2021    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: April 9, 2021

Case Name: Im v. Enriquez, et al.

Case No.: BC680592

Matter: Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment

Moving Party: Defendant Jess Enriquez

Responding Party: Unopposed


Tentative Ruling: The Motion is granted.


On November 30, 2020, the Court struck Defendant Jess Enriquez’s Answer and entered a default because Defendant failed to appear at an OSC re: “Strike Answer of Jess Enriquez for Failure to Appear.” That same day, the Court entered a default judgment against Defendant in the amount of $402,916.80 plus $25,000 in attorneys’ fees.

Defendant Jess Enriquez now seeks to set aside his default and default judgment under the discretionary and mandatory provisions of Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b). Defendant provides as follows,

5. . . . the relationship with my counsel failed, and my attorney filed a motion to end his representation in this matter.

6. The Court Granted Mr. Marshall’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel on 11/5/2020.

7. The next day, 11/6/2020, Notice of a Second OSC RE Striking my Answer for failure to appear was noticed and scheduled for 11/30/2020. I failed to appear at this hearing, and my answer was stricken and my default was entered.

8. I am not experienced in legal matters, and I did not know what to do to defend myself in this case.

9. When I was abandoned by my attorney (in this case and two other matters at the same time), I was overwhelmed and intimidated by the responsibility, by my lack of knowledge on what to do, and the stress of the cases.

(Enriquez Decl. ¶¶ 5-9.)

An attorney affidavit of fault was not provided such that mandatory relief under Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b) is inapplicable.

Rather, at issue is the discretionary provision of Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b) which provides, “The 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. Application for this relief . . . shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” The statute is liberally construed in order to give effect to the policy favoring resolution of disputes on their merits. (Hopkins & Carley v. Gens (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1410.) To be entitled to relief under the statute, the moving party must demonstrate a satisfactory excuse for his or her default, as well as diligence in seeking relief after discovery of the default. Whether the moving party has carried this burden is a question to be resolved in the discretion of the trial court. (Ibid.)

For relief to be warranted, any mistake must be something other than professional incompetence or ignorance of the law. (Hearn v. Howard (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1206.) The term “surprise” refers to “some condition or situation in which a party is unexpectedly placed to his injury, without any default or negligence of his own, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against.” (Ibid., internal quotations omitted.) Similarly, to be excusable, a litigant’s inadvertence or neglect must have been “such as might have been the act of a reasonably prudent person under the same circumstances.” (Ibid.)

The Court finds Defendant’s failure to retain new counsel and appear at the November 30, 2020, OSC to be excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b).) Thus, the Motion is granted.

Case Number: BC680592    Hearing Date: November 05, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: November 5, 2020

Case Name: Im v. Enriquez, et al.

Case No.: BC680592

Matter: Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Moving Party: Wayne S. Marshall, counsel for Defendant Jess Enriquez

Responding Party: Unopposed


Tentative Ruling: The Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is granted.


Wayne S. Marshall seeks to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Jess Enriquez. The Motion is granted because it meets all requirements of Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.

Case Number: BC680592    Hearing Date: October 02, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: October 2, 2020

Case Name: Im v. Enriquez, et al.

Case No.: BC680592

Matter: Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

Moving Party: Wayne S. Marshall, counsel for Defendant Jess Enriquez

Responding Party: Unopposed


Tentative Ruling: The Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is granted.


Wayne S. Marshall seeks to be relieved as counsel for Defendant Jess Enriquez. The Motion is granted because it meets all requirements of Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Center Street Lending Fund IV SPE LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where PRESTIGE DEFAULT SERVICES is a litigant

Latest cases where A PLUS MAJESTIC INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases where SYNERGY INVESTMENT PARTNERS LLC A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY is a litigant