This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/16/2019 at 18:13:07 (UTC).

MARA ESCROW COMPANY VS SHANNON L PINEDA

Case Summary

On 05/05/2017 MARA ESCROW COMPANY filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against SHANNON L PINEDA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JOHN P. DOYLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0406

  • Filing Date:

    05/05/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JOHN P. DOYLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MARA ESCROW COMPANY

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 10

PINEDA SHANNON L.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

MACKEY THOMAS G. ESQ.

MULLIN PATRICK C.

Defendant Attorney

BARNHOLTZ BRADLEY C

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling

7/8/2019: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Ruling

7/11/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

6/22/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

7/12/2018: Minute Order

PROTECTIVE ORDER

11/20/2017: PROTECTIVE ORDER

COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, FRAUD, CONVERSION, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, INDEMNITY, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

5/5/2017: COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, FRAUD, CONVERSION, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, INDEMNITY, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

6/23/2017: DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; ETC.

8/31/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; ETC.

Minute Order

3/14/2019: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RULING

5/1/2018: NOTICE OF RULING

Minute Order

5/22/2018: Minute Order

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO COVER THE COSTS OF THE COURT ORDERED PRIVATE MEDIATION SUBJECT TO RECOVERY AS A COST OF LITIGATION IF THE CASE IS NOT OTHERWISE SETTLED AT THE TIM

6/5/2018: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO COVER THE COSTS OF THE COURT ORDERED PRIVATE MEDIATION SUBJECT TO RECOVERY AS A COST OF LITIGATION IF THE CASE IS NOT OTHERWISE SETTLED AT THE TIM

Proof of Service

3/2/2018: Proof of Service

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF RYAN A. BRUST ISO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT AND EXHIBITS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF REPLY BRIEF RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIV

3/6/2018: SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF RYAN A. BRUST ISO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT AND EXHIBITS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF REPLY BRIEF RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIV

EXPANDED PROTECTIVE ORDER

3/9/2018: EXPANDED PROTECTIVE ORDER

SUMMONS

5/5/2017: SUMMONS

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO OSC REGARDING PROOF OF SERVICE

8/3/2017: PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO OSC REGARDING PROOF OF SERVICE

MARA ESCROW COMPANY'S STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

9/11/2017: MARA ESCROW COMPANY'S STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

97 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/11/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Mara Escrow Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference ((Alk-Purpose))

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Shannon L. Pineda (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Shannon L. Pineda (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Conference (ReMotion Setting) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference ((All-Purpose)) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Order to Show Cause Re: (Mediation) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference (All-Purpose); Order to Show Cause Re: Medi...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
175 More Docket Entries
  • 06/23/2017
  • DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2017
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2017
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Mara Escrow Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, FRAUD, CONVERSION, CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST, INDEMNITY, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC660406    Hearing Date: November 20, 2019    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: November 20, 2019

Case Name: Mara Escrow Company v. Pineda, et al.

Case No.: BC660406

Motion: Default Judgment Application

Tentative Ruling: See Discussion Below

On September 17, 2019, the Court struck Defendant Pineda’s Answer for failure to make an appearance.

Plaintiff has submitted a Default Judgment Application seeking $223,389.10 in compensatory damages.

Code Civ. Proc. § 580 states, “[t]he relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint . . . .” Code Civ. Proc. § 580 applies to a default entered as a result of an answer having been stricken. (Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 822, 828; Elec. Funds Sols., LLC v. Murphy (2005) 134 Cal. App. 4th 1161, 1175.)

Here, the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges “harm in an amount exceeding $70,000.” (FAC ¶ 43.) However, for the purposes of Code Civ. Proc. § 580, such a phrase only gives adequate notice as to $70,000 in damages, which is far less than the damages sought for default judgment. (Electronic Funds Solutions, LLC v. Murphy (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1173-1174.)

Thus, Plaintiff has two options: (1) accept a default judgment providing for $70,000 in compensatory damages or (2) amend the FAC to seek greater damages. If the latter option is chosen, however, this will “open” Defendant’s default because such would constitute a material change in the allegations of the FAC. (Cole v. Roebling Const. Co. (1909) 156 Cal. 443, (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 24, 27-28.)

The Court notes that a request for dismissal of the Doe Defendants was not provided.