This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/05/2019 at 00:37:25 (UTC).

MARCO LOPEZ VS. ELVA ARANJO

Case Summary

On 07/24/2017 MARCO LOPEZ filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against ELVA ARANJO. 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, MASTER CALENDAR, TORRIBIO, JOHN A. and MARGARET MILLER BERNAL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6446

  • Filing Date:

    07/24/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Norwalk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LORI ANN FOURNIER

MASTER CALENDAR

TORRIBIO, JOHN A.

MARGARET MILLER BERNAL

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

LOPEZ MARCO

Defendants

NEVAREZ ELVA AS TRUSTEE

ARANJO ELVA AS TRUSTEE

ARANJO ELVA

NEVAREZ HECTOR

NEVAREZ LILLIAN

NEVAREZ RAUL

LOMELI LORRAINE

NEVAREZ ELVA

ELVA FAMILY TRUST

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

OSUNA & DOTSON LAW FIRM

DOTSON JUAN FRANCISCO

Defendant Attorneys

COHEN MARC

COHEN LAW GROUP APC/ MARC COHEN

 

Court Documents

Unknown

7/24/2017: Unknown

Notice of Motion

8/11/2017: Notice of Motion

Unknown

8/11/2017: Unknown

Case Management Statement

12/27/2017: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

12/28/2017: Minute Order

Case Management Statement

12/28/2017: Case Management Statement

Unknown

1/18/2018: Unknown

Unknown

3/5/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

3/6/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

3/12/2018: Unknown

Unknown

4/12/2018: Unknown

Unknown

4/25/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

5/9/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

8/22/2018: Unknown

Unknown

10/29/2018: Unknown

Declaration

10/29/2018: Declaration

Proof of Service by Mail

2/6/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Proof of Service by Mail

4/10/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

55 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/31/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (as to why the case should not be dismissed for plaintiff's failure to appear on 4/3/2019) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (regarding service/answer/responsive pleading to the second amended complaint) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: as to why the case should not be dism...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Declaration (of Demurring or Moving Party in Support of Automatic Extension); Filed by RAUL NEVAREZ (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Declaration (of Demurring or Moving Party in Support of Automatic Extension); Filed by LORRAINE LOMELI (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • Declaration (Demurring Party); Filed by ELVA ARANJO (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (Second Amended Complaint); Filed by ELVA ARANJO (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • Request for Judicial Notice (in Support of Demurrer of Defendant Elva Aranjo to Second Amended Complaint); Filed by ELVA ARANJO (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • Declaration (of Plaintiff Counsel re 04-03-19 TSC); Filed by MARCO LOPEZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
104 More Docket Entries
  • 08/11/2017
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by MARCO LOPEZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by MARCO LOPEZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • Notice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • Notice of Pending Action; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • Notice of Lis Pendens; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by MARCO LOPEZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2017
  • Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: VC066446    Hearing Date: February 11, 2020    Dept: SEC

LOPEZ v. ARANJO

CASE NO.: VC066446

HEARING: 2/11/20

Calendar Matter#12

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendants Nevarez and Lomeli’s demurrers to second amended complaint are taken OFF-CALENDAR as moot. Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of the second amended complaint on 1/17/20.

Case Number: VC066446    Hearing Date: January 07, 2020    Dept: SEC

LOPEZ v. ARANJO

CASE NO.:  VC066446

HEARING 1/7/20

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

#8

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendants Nevarez and Lomeli’s demurrers to second amended complaint are CONTINUED to Tuesday, 2/11/20 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. SE-C.

Defendants are ORDERED to comply with CCP §§ 430.41 and 433.5, and meet and confer “in person or by telephone” to resolve the pleading issues without intervention of the court. If, after complying with CCP § 430.41, court intervention is needed, the parties may appear and argue the merits on the continued hearing date. If the parties are unable to informally resolve the issues raised in the instant demurrer, then the demurring Defendants must submit a signed declaration indicating such efforts pursuant to CCP §430.41. The declaration must be filed no later than 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, 2/4/20. (NO FAX FILING.)

CCP §§ 430.41(a) and 435.5 state that, before filing a demurrer or motion to strike, the demurring or moving party must engage in a specified meet and confer process with the party who filed the pleading at issue for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached as to the filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer/motion to strike. The demurring or moving party “shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised… If an amended [pleading] is filed, the responding party shall meet and confer again with the party who filed the amended pleading before a demurrer to the amended pleading.” (CCP §§430.41(a) and 435.5(a).) A declaration setting forth such meet and confer efforts must accompany the demurrer. (CCP §§ 430.41(a)(3) and 435.5(a)(3).)

The Court finds that the Defendants failed to satisfy their meet and confer obligations. Attorney Cohen failed to indicate whether he attempted to meet and confer “in person or by telephone,” which is required under CCP 430.41(a). Further, since Plaintiff’s counsel was relieved as counsel on 7/31/19, it is unclear if Plaintiff has knowledge of the pending demurrers. Even if Attorney Cohen met and conferred with Plaintiff’s former counsel, Defendants are ordered to further meet and confer with Plaintiff who is now in pro per.