This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/11/2020 at 06:16:10 (UTC).

PATRICIA YRIGOLLEN VS. JESUS CRUZ

Case Summary

On 07/07/2017 PATRICIA YRIGOLLEN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against JESUS CRUZ. 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 and BRIAN F. GASDIA. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6406

  • Filing Date:

    07/07/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • 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

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant

YRIGOLLEN PATRICIA

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

GARCIA ADRIAN SUED HEREIN AS

GARCIA SOTO ADRIAN

LLAMAS ARTURO

CRUZ JESUS

GARCIA ADRIAN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

RICHARDSON ANTON R.E.

RICHARDSON ANTON ROBERTS

RICHARDSON ANTON ROBERTS ELDRIDGE

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

TRAUB LIEBERMAN STRAUS & SHREWSBERRY LLP

ROGER G. HONEY LAW OFFICES OF

HONEY ROGER GLEN

BUBION JUSTIN ARNOLD

LOPEZ STEVE

 

Court Documents

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO CROSS-COMPLAINANT'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

4/13/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO CROSS-COMPLAINANT'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER REGARDING ADVANCING AND CONTINUING HEARINGS SET F...)

4/7/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER REGARDING ADVANCING AND CONTINUING HEARINGS SET F...)

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

4/2/2020: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

1/29/2020: Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS

Cross-Complaint

11/25/2019: Cross-Complaint

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

10/1/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

10/1/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT JESUS CRUZ'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JESUS CRUZ'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF STEVE LOPEZ

10/4/2019: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT JESUS CRUZ'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JESUS CRUZ'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF STEVE LOPEZ

Answer

7/31/2019: Answer

Answer

7/19/2019: Answer

Case Management Statement

4/26/2019: Case Management Statement

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE OF DEFENDANT JESUS CRUZ

4/18/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE OF DEFENDANT JESUS CRUZ

Summons

7/7/2017: Summons

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Complaint filed-Summons Issued

7/7/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Complaint filed-Summons Issued

Civil Case Cover Sheet

7/7/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2017-12-12 00:00:00

12/12/2017: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2017-12-12 00:00:00

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-01-17 00:00:00

1/17/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-01-17 00:00:00

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-03-02 00:00:00

3/2/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-03-02 00:00:00

78 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/07/2021
  • Hearing07/07/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2021
  • Hearing06/24/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2021
  • Hearing06/09/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2021
  • Hearing02/24/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by PATRICIA YRIGOLLEN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([Order /Ruling on 9/01/2020 Hearing Denying Deft's Motion for Summary Judgment]); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2020
  • DocketOrder (/Ruling on 9/01/2020 Hearing Denying Deft's Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department F; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2020
  • DocketTrial Setting Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
131 More Docket Entries
  • 12/12/2017
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department F; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Matter Placed Off Calendar) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2017
  • Docketat 01:30 pm in Department F, Master Calendar, Presiding; Conference-Case Management - Matter Placed Off Calendar

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2017
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2017-12-12 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by PATRICIA YRIGOLLEN (Plaintiff)

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by PATRICIA YRIGOLLEN (Plaintiff)

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

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: VC066406    Hearing Date: September 01, 2020    Dept: SEC

YRIGOLLEN v. CRUZ, et al.

CASE NO.: VC066406

HEARING: 10/15/19

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

CALENDAR MATTER #8

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant Cruz’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

Opposing Party to give NOTICE.

Cross-Complainant Cruz moves for summary judgment on his Declaratory Relief cause of action.

Complaint

The operative complaint is the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff Yrigollen alleges that Defendant Jesus Cruz converted his garage for residential use without the proper building permits. Cruz leased the converted garage to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff now seeks reimbursement of her rent and security deposits since the premises was untenantable. The FAC asserts causes of action for:

1. Breach of Contract (v. all Defendants)

2. Breach of Implied Covenants (v. all Defendants)

3. Breach of Contract (v. Llamas and Garcia)

4. Fraud (v. Cruz)

5. Fraud (v. Llamas and Garcia)

6. Unjust Enrichment (v. all Defendants)

7. Detrimental Reliance (v. all Defendants)

8. Quantum Meruit (v. all Defendants)

9. Involuntary and Constructive Trust (v. all Defendants)

Cross-Complainant Cruz filed a Cross-Complaint asserting a single cause of action for Declaratory Relief. Cruz contends that Plaintiff is not entitled to 100% rent abatement but is entitled to abatement of the rent minus the fair market value of the rental unit for a garage.

MSJ

A Plaintiff has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. Once met, the burden then shifts to the Defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. (CCP § 437c(p)(1).)

Cross-Complainant Cruz contends that Plaintiff is not entitled to 100% rent abatement but is entitled to abatement of the rent minus the fair market value of the rental unit for a garage.

Declaratory relief operates prospectively, serving to set controversies at rest. If there is a controversy that calls for a declaration of rights, it is no objection that past wrongs are also to be redressed; but there is no basis for declaratory relief where only past wrongs are involved. Hence, where there is an accrued cause of action for an actual breach of contract or other wrongful act, declaratory relief may be denied. (Osseous Technologies of America, Inc. v. Disoveryortho Partners LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 357, 366.)

Here, Cruz does not submit evidence that there is an ongoing relationship or future obligations between Cruz and Yrigollen and that there is conduct of the parties subject to regulation by the court. Yrigollen’s Complaint seeks breach of contract for past wrongs. Cruz’s Cross-Complaint relates to damages for those same past wrongs.

Further, “when, upon such examination, it appears that the cause of action has already accrued and the only question for determination is the liability or relief for or to which the respective parties are charged, 'the nature of the action is not a cause for declaratory relief but is defined by the subject matter of the accrued cause of action… The superior court has discretion to refuse to render a declaratory judgment when it would not be necessary or proper under all the circumstances. (Travers v. Louden (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 926, 930-32.)

Here, Yrigollen’s Breach of Contract cause of action has accrued and is still pending in the main action. The issue of rent abatement is an issue regarding the determination and valuation of damages, not the “legal rights and duties” of the parties. Triable issues exist regarding the determination of percentage of damages. Therefore, summary judgment of Cruz’s declaratory relief cause of action is not proper under the circumstances.

Further, Cruz’s request for declaratory relief regarding attorney’s fees is improper and premature. There has been no determination of a prevailing party on the substantive claims. Cruz is essentially seeking an advisory opinion, which this court declines to render at this juncture.

Motion is DENIED.