This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/25/2019 at 03:19:08 (UTC).

MCPHERSON RANE LLP VS MARK TOWLE

Case Summary

On 01/19/2018 a Contract - Other Contract case was filed by MCPHERSON RANE LLP against MARK TOWLE in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0858

  • Filing Date:

    01/19/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

TERESA A. BEAUDET

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MCPHERSON RANE LLP

Defendants and Respondents

TOWLE MARK

DOES 1 TO 100

 

Court Documents

Memorandum - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES OF PLAINTIFF MCPHERSON RANE LLP IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF DEFENDANT MARK TOWLE FOR AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE AND VACATING DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

7/10/2019: Memorandum - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES OF PLAINTIFF MCPHERSON RANE LLP IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF DEFENDANT MARK TOWLE FOR AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE AND VACATING DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION

7/15/2019: Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON MOTION OF DEFENDANT MARK TOWLE FOR AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE AND VACATING DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

7/22/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON MOTION OF DEFENDANT MARK TOWLE FOR AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE AND VACATING DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DEFAULT (CCP 473.5))

8/6/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE DEFAULT (CCP 473.5))

Order - ORDER RE MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND VACATE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

8/6/2019: Order - ORDER RE MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND VACATE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT MARK TOWLE FOR AN ORDER TO SET ASIDE AND VACATE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

8/30/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND THE MOTION OF DEFENDANT MARK TOWLE FOR AN ORDER TO SET ASIDE AND VACATE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

9/4/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER

REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT

8/1/2018: REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT

8/1/2018: JUDGMENT

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL -

8/1/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL -

Minute Order -

8/1/2018: Minute Order -

Application for Writ of Possession (Claim and Delivery) -

10/1/2018: Application for Writ of Possession (Claim and Delivery) -

Application - APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF EXECUTION, POSSESSION OR SALE

4/2/2019: Application - APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF EXECUTION, POSSESSION OR SALE

Minute Order -

7/16/2018: Minute Order -

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT MARK TOWLE

7/16/2018: ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT MARK TOWLE

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT -

6/4/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT -

Minute Order -

5/21/2018: Minute Order -

COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT ;ETC

1/19/2018: COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT ;ETC

30 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/27/2019
  • Hearing12/27/2019 at 08:30 AM in Department 44 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2019
  • Hearing10/24/2019 at 13:30 PM in Department 50 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing - Other Evidentiary Hearing

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2019
  • Hearing10/24/2019 at 13:30 PM in Department 50 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/04/2019
  • DocketApplication and Order for Appearance and Examination; Filed by McPherson Rane LLP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing - Other (Evidentiary Hearing) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default (CCP 473.5) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2019
  • DocketNotice (OF CONTINUANCE OF EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND HEARING ON MOTION OF DEFENDANT MARK TOWLE FOR AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE AND VACATING DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT); Filed by McPherson Rane LLP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2019
  • DocketNotice (OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER); Filed by McPherson Rane LLP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2019
  • Docketat 09:58 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
54 More Docket Entries
  • 05/21/2018
  • DocketCase Management Order; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2018
  • DocketCASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2018
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by McPherson Rane LLP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by McPherson Rane LLP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by McPherson Rane LLP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC690858    Hearing Date: February 11, 2020    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

mcpherson rane llp,

Plaintiff,

vs.

mark towle, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC 690858

Hearing Date:

February 11, 2020

Hearing Time:

8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION TO STRIKE OR WITHDRAW DEFENDANT’S INADVERTENTLY FILED ANSWER

Background

Plaintiff McPherson Rane LLP (“Plaintiff”) filed this breach of contract action against Defendant Mark Towle (“Towle”) on January 19, 2018.

On June 4, 2018, default was entered against Towle. On August 1, 2018, a default judgment was entered against Towle. Towle subsequently moved to set aside the default and vacate the default judgment, which the Court granted on October 24, 2019. On November 1, 2019, Towle filed his Answer to the Complaint as well as a motion for change of venue. On November 8, 2019, Towle filed another motion for change of venue.

Towle now moves to strike or withdraw his Answer as inadvertently filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a). Plaintiff opposes.

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) provides: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect . . . .”

Towle contends that his Answer was mistakenly filed along with his motion for change of venue, when, in fact, he intended only to file his Answer as an exhibit to his motion for change of venue in the event that the motion for change of venue was denied.

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) provides no authority for the Court to strike an entire pleading. As noted by Plaintiff, section 473, subdivision (a) refers only to amendment of a pleading. To the extent that Towle seeks relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 436, Plaintiff argues that Towle has failed to show that his Answer was “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” ((Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).)

Even assuming that the Court has authority under either section 473 or 436 to strike Towle’s Answer based on inadvertence, the Court does not find that Towle has established such inadvertence. Towle contends that the motion for change of venue has “preceden[ce]” over his Answer. (Mot., p. 3:14-15.) But Towle offers no authority for that proposition. Indeed, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 396b, a motion to change venue may be filed concurrently with an answer or demurrer. ((Code Civ. Proc., § 396b [“Except as otherwise provided in Section 396a, if an action or proceeding is commenced in a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter thereof, other than the court designated as the proper court for the trial thereof, under this title, the action may, notwithstanding, be tried in the court where commenced, unless the defendant, at the time he or she answers, demurs, or moves to strike, or, at his or her option, without answering, demurring, or moving to strike and within the time otherwise allowed to respond to the complaint, files with the clerk, a notice of motion for an order transferring the action or proceeding to the proper court, together with proof of service, upon the adverse party, of a copy of those papers.”].)

Towle asserts that the Answer was never meant to be filed and was submitted only as an attachment to his motion to change venue, to be filed only if his motion to change venue was denied. But as noted by Plaintiff, the motion for change of venue filed on November 1, 2019 does not refer to the Answer as an attachment, nor is the Answer identified as an exhibit to Towle’s declaration in support of the motion. Indeed, the only time the Answer is referenced is on page 7, lines 16-17 of the motion, where Towle states that the Answer is “concurrently filed” with the motion to change venue. Towle also fails to point to any rule requiring that an answer be submitted as an attachment to a motion to change venue. ((See Code Civ. Proc., § 386b, subd. (e) [if a motion to transfer is denied, a defendant has 30 days to answer, demur, move to strike or otherwise plead, unless the court specifies a different time].)

In reply, Towle argues that this motion is moot because he dismissed his Answer on November 21, 2019. The only dismissal that appears in the Court’s records is the November 21, 2019 dismissal of doe defendants. Moreover, Towle offers no authority for the proposition that a defendant may simply dismiss a filed Answer. ((See Code Civ. Proc., § 581 [setting forth rules relating to dismissal of actions and complaints].)

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Towle’s motion to strike or withdraw his Answer is denied.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED: February 11, 2020

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court