This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/15/2020 at 08:30:51 (UTC).

MARIVEL JUAREZ-RAMIREZ VS SOUTHCOAST AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC.

Case Summary

On 01/22/2018 MARIVEL JUAREZ-RAMIREZ filed an Other lawsuit against SOUTHCOAST AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MASTER CALENDAR, MARGARET MILLER BERNAL, BRIAN F. GASDIA, KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE and PAUL BRUGUERA. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6865

  • Filing Date:

    01/22/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Norwalk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MASTER CALENDAR

MARGARET MILLER BERNAL

BRIAN F. GASDIA

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

PAUL BRUGUERA

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

JUAREZ-RAMIREZ MARIVEL AN INDIVIDUAL

JUAREZ-RAMIREZ MARIVEL

Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs and Not Classified By Court

SOUTHCOAST AUTOMOTIVE GROUP INC.

EXETER FINANCE LLC

AMERICAN SAFETY CASUALTY NSURANCE COMPANY

GALAXY AUTO MALL A BUSINESS ENTITY FORM

GALAXY AUTO MALL

Cross Defendants

SOUTH COAST AUTOMOTIVE LIQUIDATORS INC

SOUTH COAST AUTOMOTIVE LIQUIDATORS INC DBA GALAXY AUTO MALL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

THE SADR LAW FIRM APLC

SADR KASRA

HEYDARI NIMA SAM

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

SIMMONDS & NARITA LLP

TOPOR JEFFREY ALAN

MAYILYAN LIANA

YU LEANNE C.

 

Court Documents

Order - COURT ORDER/RULING (HEARING 10-6-20)

10/6/2020: Order - COURT ORDER/RULING (HEARING 10-6-20)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF FRANK AIREHART IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT EXETER FINANCE LLC'S OPPOSTION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COST BY PLAINTIFF MARIVEL JUAREZ-RAMIREZ

9/23/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF FRANK AIREHART IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT EXETER FINANCE LLC'S OPPOSTION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COST BY PLAINTIFF MARIVEL JUAREZ-RAMIREZ

Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

10/7/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

5/7/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER REGARDING ADVANCING AND CONTINUING HEARING SET FO...)

4/29/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER REGARDING ADVANCING AND CONTINUING HEARING SET FO...)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF KASRA SADR IN SUPPORT OF MTN FOR ATTY FEES

1/31/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF KASRA SADR IN SUPPORT OF MTN FOR ATTY FEES

Reply - REPLY REPLY ISO MSJ

4/11/2019: Reply - REPLY REPLY ISO MSJ

Declaration - DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF, MARIVEL JUAREZ-RAMIREZ, IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT, EXETER FINANCE, LLCS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO ALL CAUSE

3/27/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF, MARIVEL JUAREZ-RAMIREZ, IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT, EXETER FINANCE, LLCS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO ALL CAUSE

Minute Order - Minute Order (Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC))

3/6/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC))

Request for Dismissal -

7/18/2018: Request for Dismissal -

Other - -

9/24/2018: Other - -

Proof of Service - No Service

4/18/2018: Proof of Service - No Service

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl

4/18/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl

Request for Dismissal

6/12/2018: Request for Dismissal

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

11/5/2018: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

10/26/2018: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Request -

9/5/2018: Request -

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment -

9/5/2018: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment -

82 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/15/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal (With Prejudice as to Complaint); Filed by MARIVEL, JUAREZ-RAMIREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal (as to the Cross-Complaint filed by Exeter Finance LLC, 4/4/18 only); Filed by EXETER FINANCE LLC (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Entry of Judgment or Order); Filed by EXETER FINANCE LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department C; Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2020
  • DocketCourt Order/Ruling (Hearing 10-6-20); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2020
  • DocketOpposition (to Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs); Filed by EXETER FINANCE LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2020
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by EXETER FINANCE LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (of Frank Airehart In Support of Defendant Exeter Finance llc's Oppostion to Motion For Attorney's Fees And Cost by Plaintiff Marivel Juarez-Ramirez); Filed by EXETER FINANCE LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department F; Order to Show Cause Re: (regarding dismissal of the complaint and cross complaint) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
127 More Docket Entries
  • 03/29/2018
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by MARIVEL, JUAREZ-RAMIREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2018
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl (BY PERSONAL SERVICE ON 02/16/18 ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2018
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by MARIVEL, JUAREZ-RAMIREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by MARIVEL, JUAREZ-RAMIREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by MARIVEL, JUAREZ-RAMIREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by MARIVEL, JUAREZ-RAMIREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • DocketNotice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: VC066865    Hearing Date: October 06, 2020    Dept: C

JUAREZ-RAMIREZ v. SOUTHCOAST AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC.

CASE NO.: VC066865

HEARING: 10/6/20

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

[Remote appearances are encouraged and will be given priority.]

#6

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff Juarez-Ramirez’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs is DENIED.

Opposing Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Juarez-Ramirez moves for attorney’s fees and costs against Exeter Finance, LLC pursuant to CC § 1780(d).

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that her dealer, Southcoast Automotive Group, Inc. dba Galaxy Auto Mall, sold her a defective vehicle. Plaintiff’s claims against Exeter Finance, LLC are based on the Holder Rule, which holds a commercial lender liable for claims against the seller of goods or services.

On 7/18/18, Plaintiff dismissed the dealer, Southcoast Automotive Group, Inc.

Plaintiff settled with Defendant Exeter Finance LLC for $2,500.00. The settlement agreement deems Plaintiff as the prevailing party under her CLRA claim. (Sadr Decl., Ex. 1.)

Plaintiff now seeks $57,304.00 in attorney’s fees.

The CLRA provides for recovery of attorneys fees to a “prevailing party plaintiff in litigation filed pursuant to this section.” (CC § 1780(d).) In Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the dealer did not appear for trial. The parties settled their claims under CLRA, but for the Holder Rule. The court held:

[T]he Laffertys may assert causes of action against Wells Fargo under the Holder Rule only to the extent they have separately arising claims against Geweke. ‘[P]rivate actions to vindicate rights asserted under the [FTC] may not be maintained.’ . . . Thus, the Laffertys must ‘borrow’ a cause of action from another statute or common law source to assert a claim against Wells Fargo.” . . . . For purposes of the CLRA, borrowing a cause of action under the CLRA is not the same as a cause of action “filed pursuant to” Civil Code section 1780. The Laffertys’ cause of action under the CLRA arose out of their allegation the motor home’s “mechanical and electrical failures were never remedied even though Geweke repeatedly assured them the problems would be fixed.” . . . Thus, the CLRA claim applied to Wells Fargo only under the Holder Rule not as a claim filed under Civil Code section 1780. Without the Holder Rule, the Laffertys would have had no claim against Wells Fargo under the CLRA. Without a direct claim under the CLRA, the Laffertys are not entitled to attorney fees under Civil Code section 1780 against Wells Fargo.

(Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 419.)

Plaintiff failed to file any Reply addressing the Lafferty Rule.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.