This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2020 at 02:23:23 (UTC).

MARIA ROCHA VS. TONY'S MHS INC., ET AL.

Case Summary

On 05/14/2018 MARIA ROCHA filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against TONY'S MHS INC . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Compton Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MAURICE A. LEITER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9156

  • Filing Date:

    05/14/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Compton Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MAURICE A. LEITER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

ROCHA MARIA

Defendants

DOES 1-10

NABUAU RONALD

TONY'S MHS INC.

RONALD ZABLAN

ZABLAN RONALD

Other

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

Not Classified By Court

MARK VON ESCH

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

KESHMIRI KAVEH

Defendant Attorneys

VON ESCH MARK F.

VONESCH MARK FRANK

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

4/21/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Motion for Summary Judgment

3/10/2020: Motion for Summary Judgment

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

11/19/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)

Notice - NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

6/4/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Notice - NOTICE OF HEARING

4/30/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF HEARING

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE

9/21/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment -

9/17/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment -

Declaration - Declaration of Counsel in Response to Order to Show Cause

11/28/2018: Declaration - Declaration of Counsel in Response to Order to Show Cause

Complaint

5/14/2018: Complaint

Summons

5/14/2018: Summons

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Proof-Service/Summons

7/3/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Proof-Service/Summons

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

8/1/2018: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Proof of Personal Service -

8/24/2018: Proof of Personal Service -

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment -

7/17/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment -

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment -

7/17/2018: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment -

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint -

7/3/2018: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint -

Notice of Continuance -

7/9/2018: Notice of Continuance -

61 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/04/2020
  • Hearing12/04/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department A at 200 West Compton Blvd., Compton, CA 90220; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2020
  • Hearing12/04/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department A at 200 West Compton Blvd., Compton, CA 90220; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2020
  • Hearing12/04/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department A at 200 West Compton Blvd., Compton, CA 90220; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (for failure to Prosecute Case) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal f...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Entry of Judgment); Filed by MARIA ROCHA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2020
  • DocketNotice of Rejection - Pleadings; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
80 More Docket Entries
  • 07/09/2018
  • DocketNotice of Continuance

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by MARIA ROCHA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2018
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2018
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by MARIA ROCHA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet (Civil Case Cover Sheet- Unlimited); Filed by MARIA ROCHA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet- Unlimited; Filed by MARIA ROCHA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by MARIA ROCHA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: TC029156    Hearing Date: August 13, 2020    Dept: A

# 5. Maria Rocha v. Tony’s MHS, Inc., et al.

Case No.: TC029156

Matter on calendar for: Motion for summary judgment

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

Plaintiff Maria Rocha allegedly hired defendants Tony’s MHS, Inc., and Ronald Zablan, erroneously sued as Ronald Nabuau, to work on her mobile home. Although Rocha paid the defendants, they did not perform under the contract. The Complaint contains a single cause of action for breach of contract.

Rocha now moves for summary judgment against Zablan.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion.

  1. Standard

A “motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (C.C.P., § 437c(c).) "A moving party need only show it is entitled to the benefit of a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence in order to shift the burden of proof to the opposing party to show there are triable issues of fact. [Security Pac. Nat. Bank v. Associated Motor Sales (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 171, 178–179.]" (Alvarez v. Seaside Transportation Services LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 635, 644.) Once the moving party has met its burden of demonstrating that there is no triable issue as to any material fact, the opposing party cannot rest upon the mere allegations of the pleadings but must present admissible evidence showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Company (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 844.) “In ruling on the motion, the court must consider all of the evidence and all of the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom… and must view such evidence… in the light most favorable to the opposing party.” (Id. at 844-845; C.C.P., § 437c(p)(2).) “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (C.C.P., § 437c(f)(1).)

  1. Analysis

    A breach of contract cause of action has the following elements: (1) existence of a contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach (or anticipatory breach), and (4) resulting damage. (Armstrong Petroleum Corp. v. Tri-Valley Oil & Gas Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1375, 1391 fn. 6.)

    Rocha’s motion for summary judgment relies on Zablan’s admissions to the first set of Requests for Admission (“RFA”) served on him on June 24, 2019. Under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280(d), if a party fails to timely respond to requests for admission, the propounding party may move for an order deeming the matter admitted. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 774–775.) If the responding party serves its responses before the hearing the court must deny the motion. (Ibid.) “ ‘But woe betide the party who fails to serve responses before the hearing. In that instance the court has no discretion but to grant the admission motion, usually with fatal consequences for the defaulting party.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.)

    Rocha filed a motion to deem the requests as admitted on August 5, 2019. Zablan did not oppose the motion or respond to the discovery before the hearing. The Court granted Rocha’s motion on September 5, 2019.

    Rocha now relies upon the following admitted facts as evidence for this motion:

  1. Ruling

    The motion for summary judgment is granted.

    Next dates:

    Notice:

Case Number: TC029156    Hearing Date: March 10, 2020    Dept: A

# 8. Maria Rocha v. Tony’s MHS, Inc., et al.

Case No.: TC029156

Matter on calendar for: Motion for Summary Judgment

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

    Plaintiff Maria Rocha allegedly hired defendants Tony’s MHS, Inc., and Ronald Zablan, erroneously sued as Ronald Nabuau, to work on her mobile home. Although Rocha paid the defendants, they did not perform their alleged obligations under the contract. Zablan is self-represented.

    Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed and served her motion for summary judgment on October 22, 2019. Motions for summary judgment must be filed and served 75 calendar days before the hearing. (C.C.P., § 437c(2).) This is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be cured by a continuance. Plaintiff’s subsequent proofs of service showing the motion was re-served and that the hearing was continued do not suffice; Plaintiff must reserve the motion with a new original hearing date.

    The motion for summary judgment is taken off-calendar.

  2. Ruling

    The motion for summary judgment is taken off-calendar. Plaintiff must reserve the motion with a new original hearing date.

    Next dates:

    Notice:

Case Number: TC029156    Hearing Date: November 19, 2019    Dept: A

# 11. Maria Rocha v. Tony’s MHS, Inc., et al.

Case No.: TC029156

Matter on calendar for: Motion for Summary Judgment

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

    Plaintiff Maria Rocha allegedly hired defendants Tony’s MHS, Inc., and Ronald Zablan, erroneously sued as Ronald Nabuau, to work on her mobile home. Although Rocha paid the defendants, they did not perform their alleged obligations under the contract. Zablan is self-represented.

    Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed and served her motion for summary judgment on October 22, 2019. Motions for summary judgment must be filed and served 75 calendar days before the hearing. (C.C.P., § 437c(2).) This is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be cured by a continuance. Plaintiff must file and serve her motion in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure and Rules of Court.

    The motion for summary judgment is taken off-calendar.

  2. Ruling

    The motion for summary judgment is taken off-calendar

    Next dates:

    Notice: