This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/22/2021 at 05:47:05 (UTC).

LORENA L. SALAZAR, ET AL. VS JOSHUA CABRYON JOHNSON, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 09/09/2019 LORENA L SALAZAR filed a Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle lawsuit against JOSHUA CABRYON JOHNSON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH, MICHAEL E. WHITAKER and MARK C. KIM. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1828

  • Filing Date:

    09/09/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Uninsured Motor Vehicle

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH

MICHAEL E. WHITAKER

MARK C. KIM

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

MUJO SANTIAGO

SALAZAR LORENA L.

PARRA ENRIQUE

PARRA RODRIGO

CASTANIA MICHELE

Defendants

JOHNSON JOSHUA CABRYON

GARCIA LETICIA

NAVA GARCIA BIANCA ANGELA

EAN HOLDINGS LLC

SALAZAR LORENA

NAVAGARCIA BIANCA

MUJO SANTIAGO JR.

GAINES DAVON

EAN HOLDINGS LLC.

JOHNSON JOSHUA

Not Classified By Court and Defendants

EAN HOLDINGS LLC

DAVON GAINES

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

CARTER PAUL J.

MESAROS CHRISTOPHER PAUL

Defendant Attorneys

ARMSTRONG ROBERT

DROZIN GARTH M.

REISINGER ROBERT

REISINGER ROBERT LEE

CASE ANTHONY

MILLER ADAM ISAAC

 

Court Documents

Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM AND SPECIAL ROGS

8/3/2021: Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM AND SPECIAL ROGS

Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS

8/3/2021: Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS

Request for Dismissal

8/6/2021: Request for Dismissal

Notice - NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS' ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITIONS

8/9/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS' ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITIONS

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FOR ORDER DEEMING FACTS ADMITTED AS TO PLAINTIFF ENRIQUE PARRA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

8/9/2021: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION FOR ORDER DEEMING FACTS ADMITTED AS TO PLAINTIFF ENRIQUE PARRA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ODER DEEMING FACTS ADMITTED AS TO PLAINTIFF ENRIQUE PARRA AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS PER CCP 2033.280; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTH

7/8/2021: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ODER DEEMING FACTS ADMITTED AS TO PLAINTIFF ENRIQUE PARRA AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS PER CCP 2033.280; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTH

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

7/8/2021: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS' ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITIONS

7/12/2021: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS' ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITIONS

Case Management Statement

6/8/2021: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

6/17/2021: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

6/23/2021: Case Management Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE)

5/5/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE)

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFS

4/28/2021: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFS

Notice of Ruling

1/25/2021: Notice of Ruling

Motion to Consolidate

12/23/2020: Motion to Consolidate

Notice of Related Case

12/10/2019: Notice of Related Case

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE)

12/10/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [PI GENERAL ORDER], STANDING ORDER RE PI PROCEDURES AND HEARING DATES

9/26/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [PI GENERAL ORDER], STANDING ORDER RE PI PROCEDURES AND HEARING DATES

78 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/28/2021
  • Hearing09/28/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department S27 at 275 Magnolia, Long Beach, CA 90802; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • Hearing09/28/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department S27 at 275 Magnolia, Long Beach, CA 90802; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2021
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Bianca Navagarcia (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2021
  • DocketReply (IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFS); Filed by EAN Holdings, LLC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2021
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Michele Castania (Plaintiff); Rodrigo Parra (Plaintiff); Enrique Parra (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2021
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Joshua Cabryon Johnson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2021
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by EAN Holdings, LLC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 32, Michael E. Whitaker, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Order (to Mandatory Settlement Conference) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/12/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Joshua Cabryon Johnson (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
114 More Docket Entries
  • 10/07/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Lorena L. Salazar (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Lorena L. Salazar (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Lorena L. Salazar (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2019
  • DocketPI General Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([PI General Order], Standing Order re PI Procedures and Hearing Dates); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Michele Castania (Plaintiff); Rodrigo Parra (Plaintiff); Enrique Parra (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Lorena L. Salazar (Plaintiff); Santiago Mujo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Lorena L. Salazar (Plaintiff); Santiago Mujo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Lorena L. Salazar (Plaintiff); Santiago Mujo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 19STCV31828 Hearing Date: August 10, 2021 Dept: S27

\r\n\r\n

  1. Background Facts

    In 19STCV31828, Plaintiffs, Lorena L. Salazar and Santiago Mujo filed\r\nthis action against Defendants, Joshua Cabryon Johnson, Bianca Angela Nava\r\nGarcia, Leticia Garcia, and EAN Holdings, LLC for damages arising out of an\r\nautomobile accident.

    The above action has been consolidated with 19STCV33415, wherein\r\nPlaintiffs, Michele Castania, Rodrigo Parra, and Enrique Parra sued Defendants,\r\nSantiago Mujo, Jr., Lorena Salazar, EAN Holdings, LLC, Joshua Johnson, Bianca\r\nNavagarcia, and Davon Gaines for damages arising out of the same automobile accident.

  2. Matters on Calendar Today

    On 7/12/21, Defendants filed six discovery motions:

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
  1. Motions to Compel Responses to\r\nInterrogatories

    To the extent responses, without\r\nobjections, have been served prior to the hearing, the motions will be\r\nsubstantively moot. To the extent\r\nobjection-free responses have not been served prior to the hearing, Plaintiffs\r\nare ordered to serve them within ten days. \r\nCCP §2030.290(a), (b)

  2. Motions\r\nto Deem RFAs Admitted

    CCP §2033.280 prohibits the Court\r\nfrom deeming RFAs admitted if responses are served prior to the hearing. Thus, assuming responses are served prior to\r\nthe hearing, the motions to deem RFAs admitted will be substantively\r\ndenied. If they are not served prior to\r\nthe hearing, the motions will be granted.

  3. Depositions

    Plaintiffs’ attorney declares “several\r\nparties” have objected to taking depositions while criminal proceedings against\r\nJohnson proceed. He declares these\r\nproceedings include charges for murder. It\r\nis unclear which parties object to depositions going forward, or why those\r\nobjections are in place. It makes sense\r\nnot to depose Johnson while criminal charges are pending, as the Fifth\r\nAmendment is at issue. It is unclear,\r\nhowever, why other depositions would not be going forward.

    Plaintiffs fail to show that they\r\nserved objections to Defendant’s Notices of Deposition, which they appear to\r\nconcede were properly served on them. The\r\nmotions to compel Plaintiffs’ depositions are therefore granted. Counsel are ordered to meet and confer to\r\nagree upon a date, time, and location for the depositions.

  4. Sanctions

    The Court finds sanctions are appropriate\r\nin connection with all of the above motions for a variety of reasons. First, sanctions in connection with the\r\nmotions to deem RFAs admitted are absolutely mandatory, and there is no discretion\r\nto deny them. §2033.280(c). Second, Plaintiffs’ attorney fails to declare\r\nthat there was communication with Defense Counsel concerning responses and/or\r\ndepositions. Third, Plaintiffs’ attorney\r\nfailed to provide any explanation at all for why responses to RFAs and\r\ninterrogatories have not been served timely, indicating only that they will be\r\nserved prior to the hearing.

    Defendant, Gaines seeks sanctions\r\nin the amount of $885/motion. Defense\r\nCounsel declares he billed three hours in connection with each motion and\r\nanticipates billing two hours in connection with the reply and hearing on the motions. Defense Counsel bills at the rate of\r\n$165/hour. The Court awards one hour to\r\nprepare each form discovery motion. The Court\r\nawards the requested two hours to reply and appear at the hearing, but only awards\r\nthe time once. The Court therefore\r\nawards a total of six hours of attorney time at the rate of $165/hour, or $990\r\nin attorneys’ fees. The Court awards the\r\nrequested four filing fees of $60 each, or $240 in costs. The total sanctions award in favor of Gaines\r\nis therefore $1230. Sanctions are sought\r\nand imposed against Plaintiffs only and not against their attorney of record. The Court orders each of the two plaintiffs\r\n(Enrique and Rodrigo Parra) to pay ½ of the sanctions awarded; each of the two\r\nplaintiffs must pay sanctions in the amount of $615 to Defendant, Gaines, by\r\nand through his attorney of record, within twenty days.

    Defendant, Johnson seeks sanctions\r\nin the amounts of $1010 (depositions) and $740 (interrogatories). Defense Counsel declares he spent three hours\r\non each motion, and will spend one hour (interrogatories) and two hours (depositions)\r\npreparing for and attending the hearing on the motions. Defense Counsel bills at the rate of\r\n$185/hour. The Court awards one hour to\r\nprepare each form discovery motion. The Court\r\nawards two hours to appear at the hearing, but only awards the time once. The Court therefore awards a total of four\r\nhours of attorney time at the rate of $185/hour, or $740 in attorneys’\r\nfees. The Court also awards the\r\nrequested $85/motion in costs, or $170 total. \r\nThe Court therefore awards sanctions in the total amount of $910. Sanctions are sought and imposed against\r\nPlaintiffs and their attorney of record; Plaintiffs and their attorney of\r\nrecord, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by\r\nand through his attorney of record, in the total amount of $910, within twenty\r\ndays.

    Defendants are ordered to give notice.

    Parties who intend to submit\r\non this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as\r\ndirected by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does\r\nnot receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and\r\nthere are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the\r\nparty’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting\r\non the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party\r\nshould make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n'

Case Number: 19STCV31828    Hearing Date: May 5, 2021    Dept: 32

DEPT:

32

CASE NUMBER:

19STCV31828, consolidated with 19STCV33415

CASE NAME:

Lorena L. Salazar, et al., v. Joshua Cabryon Johnson, et al.,

After review of the court file, the Court makes the following order:

Department 32 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented.

AT THE DIRECTION OF DEPARTMENT 1:

This case is hereby transferred and reassigned to the following Independent Calendar Court in THE SOUTH DISTRICT, JUDGE MARK C. KIM presiding in DEPT. S-27 of the LONG BEACH Courthouse, for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the case for trial to that Independent Calendar Court.

Any pending motions or hearings, including trial and status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar court.

PlaintiffS shall give notice to all parties of record.

DATED: May 5, 2021 ___________________________

Michael E. Whitaker

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: 19STCV31828    Hearing Date: January 21, 2021    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

lorena l. salazar, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

joshua cabryon johnson, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19STCV31828, related to

19STCV33415

Hearing Date: January 21, 2021

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

MOTION TO consolidate

Defendants Bianca Angela Nava Garcia and Leticia Garcia (“Defendants”) move to consolidate this case with Castania, et al. v. Mujo, et al. (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2019, No. 19STCV33415) for all purposes. The unopposed motion is granted.

Per Local Rule 3.3, subdivision (g), “Cases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department. A motion to consolidate two or more cases may be noticed and heard after the cases, initially filed in different departments, have been related into a single department, or if the cases were already assigned to that department.” (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 3.3(g)(1).) The Court has already related these cases, and both are pending in Department 32. Consolidation is warranted as the cases present common issues of fact regarding the same motor vehicle collision. Accordingly, the motion is granted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants’ motion to consolidate this case with Castania, et al. v. Mujo, et al. (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2019, No. 19STCV33415) is granted. The cases are consolidated for all purposes. All pending hearing dates in Castania, et al. v. Mujo, et al. (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2019, No. 19STCV33415), including the final status conference and trial dates, are advanced to this date and vacated.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this order, and to file a proof of service of same.

DATED: January 21, 2021 ___________________________

Michael E. Whitaker

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: 19STCV31828    Hearing Date: June 29, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Spring Street Courthouse, Department 32

lorena l. salazar , et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

joshua cabryon johnson, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19STCV31828, related to

19STCV33415

Hearing Date: June 29, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

MOTION TO STAY discovery

Background

Plaintiffs Lorena L. Salazar and Santiago Mujo (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action after Decedent Santiago Mujo (“Decedent”) was killed in an automobile collision with Defendant Joshua Cabryon Johnson (“Defendant”). The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office has charged Defendant for his role in Decedent’s death. Accordingly, Defendants move to stay discovery with respect to Defendant, pending resolution of the criminal case. Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion, which is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

Where a civil defendant faces criminal prosecution based on the same facts as those at issue in a pending civil action, the defendant is entitled to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege without penalty. In those circumstances, a stay of the civil action until disposition of the criminal matter may be appropriate. (Pacers v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686, 690.)

DISCUSSION

Here, Defendant faces charges of reckless driving, driving on a suspended license, and premeditated murder for the death of Decedent. In determining whether a stay is appropriate, the court considers the following factors: “(1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on defendants; (3) the convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation.”  (Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 885, internal quotations omitted.)

Defendant faces criminal charges, so she must choose between exercising her Fifth Amendment rights and defending this action. This is an issue because the potential exists for “the prosecutors to monitor the civil proceedings hoping to obtain incriminating testimony . . . through civil discovery . . . .”  (Fuller v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 309, internal quotations omitted.)  This places a significant burden on Defendant. Conversely, Defendants are seeking only a stay of discovery with respect to Defendant, meaning the rest of the case may proceed. Also, Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion, waiving right to argue that a stay is unwarranted. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The motion to stay all discovery against Defendant is granted. The stay shall remain in effect until the Court’s Order to Show Cause re: Stay of Discovery, which shall be held on September 18, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: June 29, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: 19STCV31828    Hearing Date: March 17, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Spring Street Courthouse, Department 32

lorena l. salazar , et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

joshua cabryon johnson, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19STCV31828, related to

19STCV33415

Hearing Date: March 17, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

MOTION TO STAY discovery

Background

Plaintiffs Lorena L. Salazar and Santiago Mujo (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action after Decedent Santiago Mujo (“Decedent”) was killed in an automobile collision with Defendant Joshua Cabryon Johnson (“Defendant”). The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office has charged Defendant for his role in Decedent’s death. Accordingly, Defendants move to stay discovery with respect to Defendant, pending resolution of the criminal case. Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion, which is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

Where a civil defendant faces criminal prosecution based on the same facts as those at issue in a pending civil action, the defendant is entitled to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege without penalty. In those circumstances, a stay of the civil action until disposition of the criminal matter may be appropriate. (Pacers v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686, 690.)

DISCUSSION

Here, Defendant faces charges of reckless driving, driving on a suspended license, and premeditated murder for the death of Decedent. In determining whether a stay is appropriate, the court considers the following factors: “(1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on defendants; (3) the convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation.”  (Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 885, internal quotations omitted.)

Defendant faces criminal charges, so she must choose between exercising her Fifth Amendment rights and defending this action. This is an issue because the potential exists for “the prosecutors to monitor the civil proceedings hoping to obtain incriminating testimony . . . through civil discovery . . . .”  (Fuller v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 309, internal quotations omitted.)  This places a significant burden on Defendant. Conversely, Defendants are seeking only a stay of discovery with respect to Defendant, meaning the rest of the case may proceed. Also, Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion, waiving right to argue that a stay is unwarranted. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The motion to stay all discovery against Defendant is granted. The stay shall remain in effect until the Court’s Order to Show Cause re: Stay of Discovery, which shall be held on September 18, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: March 17, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where EAN Holdings, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer CARTER PAUL

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MESAROS CHRISTOPHER PAUL