This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/21/2019 at 07:27:39 (UTC).

LORENZO CUEVAS VS ANA B. APARICIO

Case Summary

On 05/01/2018 LORENZO CUEVAS filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against ANA B APARICIO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LORI ANN FOURNIER and MARGARET MILLER BERNAL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7104

  • Filing Date:

    05/01/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Norwalk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LORI ANN FOURNIER

MARGARET MILLER BERNAL

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

CUEVAS LORENZO

Defendants

APARICIO ANA B. AN INDIVIDUAL

MORALES LEONARDO AN INDIVIDUAL

MORALES OSCAR LEONARDO

APARICIO ANA B.

Cross Plaintiffs

APARICIO-IBARRA ANA

APARICIO ANA B

Cross Defendants

CUEVAS SANDRA

CUEVAS CESAR

CUEVAS SANDRA AN INDIVIDUAL

CUEVAS CESAR AN INDIVIDUAL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

GASTELUM OMAR INC. LAW OFFICES OF

GASTELUM OMAR

Defendant Attorneys

KROG TIFFANY ADELL

DIJULIO LAW GROUP

 

Court Documents

Summons

5/1/2018: Summons

Cross-Complaint

6/1/2018: Cross-Complaint

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

6/1/2018: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Unknown

6/11/2018: Unknown

Unknown

6/12/2018: Unknown

Unknown

6/18/2018: Unknown

Order

9/6/2018: Order

Minute Order

9/6/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Motion

9/6/2018: Notice of Motion

Order

10/9/2018: Order

Case Management Statement

11/6/2018: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

11/13/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

2/22/2019: Minute Order

Request for Dismissal

3/1/2019: Request for Dismissal

Minute Order

4/23/2019: Minute Order

Motion for Leave to Intervene

5/8/2019: Motion for Leave to Intervene

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

6/18/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order

6/18/2019: Minute Order

31 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/18/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2019
  • Order (re: hearing of 6/18/19); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2019
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by OSCAR LEONARDO MORALES (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by OSCAR LEONARDO MORALES (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • Reply (INTERVENOR OSCAR LEONARDO MORALES? REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO INTERVENE; DECLARATION OF TIFFANY KROG); Filed by OSCAR LEONARDO MORALES (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Opposition (Plaintiff Lorenzo Cuevas' Opposition to Intervenor Oscar Leonardo Morales' Motion for Leave of Court to Intervene; Memorandum of Points and Authorities); Filed by LORENZO CUEVAS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • Motion for Leave to Intervene; Filed by OSCAR LEONARDO MORALES (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (regarding filing/serving a first amended cross complaint/answer/responsive pleading thereto) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
62 More Docket Entries
  • 06/01/2018
  • Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by ANA B. APARICIO (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2018
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by LORENZO CUEVAS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2018
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl (AS TO ANA B. APARICIO ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2018
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2018
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2018
  • Notice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2018
  • Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2018
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: VC067104    Hearing Date: December 19, 2019    Dept: SEC

CUEVAS v. APARICIO

CASE NO.:  VC067104

HEARING: 12/19/19

#9

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint is DENIED.

Opposing Party to give Notice.

California recognizes “a general rule of…liberal allowance of amendments…” (Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) It has also long been recognized that “even if the proposed legal theory is a novel one, ‘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.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) In light of great liberality employed when ruling on a motion for leave to amend, the court will not normally consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading since grounds for demurrer or motion to strike are premature. Thus, absent prejudice to the opposing party, courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint “at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial.” (emphasis added.) (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.)

Notwithstanding the liberality associated with Motions for Leave to File an Amended pleading, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied. Plaintiff seeks to make the following changes: (1) add OSCAR LEONARDO MORALES as a defendant to this action once again; (2) add specific facts that show that Defendants APARICIO and MORALES made false representations pertaining to the transaction involving the Subject Property; (3) add specific facts that show Defendants APARICIO and MORALES concealed their intention from Plaintiff and the SANDOVALS; (4) add specific facts which show that MORALES was heavily involved in the negotiation of the transaction, was present at all meetings, knew that Lorenzo and Ana were the true owners of the Subject Property, but failed to notify Lorenzo of the transaction; and (5) add facts to show that MORALES was not a bona fide purchaser. (See Gastelum Decl., ¶2.)

OSCAR LEONARDO MORALES was originally named as an individual defendant in this action. On October 9, 2018, the Court: GRANTED MORALES’s Motion to Strike punitive damages without leave to amend; SUSTAINED MORALES’s Demurrer without leave to amend as to Plaintiff’s causes of action for fraud, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and rescission of sale; and OVERRULED as to Plaintiff’s causes of action for quiet title and declaratory relief. On the same date that this Order was issued, October 9, 2018, Plaintiff dismissed MORALES from the instant action without prejudice.

Over a year after the Court’s ruling on MORALES’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike, Plaintiff now seeks to reallege facts and causes of action that were already substantively adjudicated.

The Motion is denied.