This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/01/2022 at 17:45:25 (UTC).

ROSA COJULUN VS LIRIA MELENDEZ ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/03/2017 ROSA COJULUN filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against LIRIA MELENDEZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT and JOANNE B. O'DONNELL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6279

  • Filing Date:

    04/03/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT

JOANNE B. O'DONNELL

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

COJULUN ROSA

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

BEST ALLIANCE FORECLOSURE

LIEN SERVICES CORP.

VALLE VICTOR

MELENDEZ LIRIA

PEREZ JAVIER

MELENDEZ LUISA

DEOS 1 TO 10

BEST ALLIANCE FORECLOSURE AND LIEN

DOES 1 TO 10

Respondent, Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

MELENDEZ LIRIA

Respondents, Defendants and Cross Defendants

VALLE VICTOR

PEREZ JAVIER

BEST ALLIANCE FORECLOSURE AND LIEN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED O. ANYIA

ANYIA ALFRED OSHIOMELE

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

BRIFMAN MARK

BRIFMAN MARK ALAN

KAZACHKI DEIAN VALENTINOV

ORONSAYE CHRISTIAN IGHEGHA

 

Court Documents

ORDER TAKING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE OFF CALENDAR

12/12/2017: ORDER TAKING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE OFF CALENDAR

Notice of Ruling

6/20/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SANCTIONS...)

6/21/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SANCTIONS...)

Order - Dismissal

6/21/2019: Order - Dismissal

Order - Dismissal

10/2/2019: Order - Dismissal

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE DISMISSAL OF UNSERVED DEFENDANT...)

10/2/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE DISMISSAL OF UNSERVED DEFENDANT...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE DISMISSAL OF UNSERVED DEFENDANT...) OF 10/02/2019

10/2/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE DISMISSAL OF UNSERVED DEFENDANT...) OF 10/02/2019

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

10/15/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER FILED 08/27/2018 BY CROSS -DEFENDANTS JAVIER PEREZ, ET AL

10/25/2019: Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWER FILED 08/27/2018 BY CROSS -DEFENDANTS JAVIER PEREZ, ET AL

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE OF CROSS-COMPLAINANT, LIRIA MELEN...)

11/4/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE OF CROSS-COMPLAINANT, LIRIA MELEN...)

Notice of Ruling

11/21/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (POST-MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE)

1/9/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (POST-MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE)

Motion for Summary Adjudication

2/18/2020: Motion for Summary Adjudication

Separate Statement

2/18/2020: Separate Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL OR ADVANCE...)

2/28/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL OR ADVANCE...)

Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial or Advance Motion for Summary Adjudication

2/28/2020: Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial or Advance Motion for Summary Adjudication

Order - ORDER [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL OR ADVANCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION)

2/28/2020: Order - ORDER [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL OR ADVANCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION)

Notice of Ruling

3/11/2020: Notice of Ruling

168 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/30/2022
  • DocketProof of Service - No Service; Filed by Javier Perez (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/30/2022
  • DocketProof of Service - No Service; Filed by Javier Perez (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/27/2022
  • DocketProof of Service - No Service; Filed by Javier Perez (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/22/2022
  • DocketProof of Service - No Service; Filed by Javier Perez (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/22/2022
  • DocketAssociation of Attorney; Filed by Javier Perez (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/21/2022
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 74, Michelle Williams Court, Presiding; Jury Trial ((7 days))

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/20/2022
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 74, Michelle Williams Court, Presiding; Jury Trial ((7 days)) - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/20/2022
  • DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by Javier Perez (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/20/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Jury Trial (7 days))); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/14/2022
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Javier Perez (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
305 More Docket Entries
  • 04/10/2017
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Rosa Cojulun (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/10/2017
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Rosa Cojulun (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/10/2017
  • DocketAPPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (T.R.O) AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (O.S.C) RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION,ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/10/2017
  • DocketMinute Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/10/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF ERRATA

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/10/2017
  • DocketPEREZ POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ENJOIN TRUSTEE'S SALE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/10/2017
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2017-04-10 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/03/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Rosa Cojulun (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/03/2017
  • DocketVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT ;ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/03/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: ****6279 Hearing Date: September 7, 2021 Dept: 74

****6279 ROSA COJULUN vs LIRIA MELENDEZ

Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions or, in the alternative, Contempt

TENTATIVE RULING: The request for terminating sanctions or a contempt finding are DENIED. Defendant’s request for additional monetary sanctions is GRANTED because the court finds this motion was brought with substantial justification at the time it was filed. Plaintiff and his attorney of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the amount of $1,750 (5 hours at $350/hour), within twenty days. These sanctions are in addition to sanctions previously imposed.

Once a party or witness has been ordered to attend a deposition, or to answer discovery, or to produce documents, more severe sanctions are available for continued refusal to make discovery. Willful “disobedience” must be shown to establish contempt. But for purposes other than contempt, “disobedience” does not require a showing of willfulness. Noncompliance with the court’s order is all that need be shown. If a party fails to obey a discovery order, the court may impose whatever sanctions are just.

It is undisputed that while substantially late, plaintiff has complied with the non-monetary portions of the prior court orders. The request for terminating sanctions or a contempt finding are DENIED. Defendant’s request for additional monetary sanctions is GRANTED because the court finds this motion was brought with substantial justification at the time it was filed.

'


Case Number: ****6279    Hearing Date: March 25, 2021    Dept: 74

****6279 ROSA COJULUN VS LIRIA MELENDEZ

Defendant Liria Melendez’ Unopposed Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions

TENTATIVE RULING:  The Motion is GRANTED. The motion to compel responses to request for production of documents (set one) is GRANTED.  Defendant Javier Perez is ordered to serve verified, code compliant responses within 20 days.  All objections are deemed waived.  Defendant Liria Melendez’ request for sanctions is GRANTED.  Sanctions in the amount of $1,050 (3 hrs at $350/hour) are imposed, jointly and severally, against Defendant Javier Perez and his counsel, payable within 20 days.



Case Number: ****6279    Hearing Date: December 15, 2020    Dept: 74

****6279 ROSA COJULUN VS LIRIA MELENDEZ

Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED.

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED. The court takes judicial notice of the contents of the official court file in this matter. Evid. Code ;452.

Motion for Reconsideration

Any party affected by a court order may request a reconsideration of that order. (Code Civ. Proc. ; 1008(a).) The propounding party must file an application within 10 days following service of the written notice of entry of the order. (Id.) A request to reconsider the matter must consider “new or different facts, circumstances, or law.” (Id.) The judge that granted or denied the order must hear the reconsideration. (Id.) The party seeking the reconsideration must state by affidavit “what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (Id.)

When a court granted or denied a prior application for an order in whole or in part, the original party making the application may make an additional application for the same order when it based upon “new or different facts, circumstances, or law in which case it shall be shown by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (Code Civ. Proc. ; 1008(b).) If a party fails to comply with CCP ; 1008(b), the court may revoke or set aside on ex parte motion any order following the application. (Id.)

In this case, the Court ruled on Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication on August 25, 2020. Defendant then filed this instant motion on September 8, 2020, which is more than ten days after entry of order. As Defendant is the moving party, he was directed to give notice and was thereby on notice as to the outcome of his motion. (August 25, 2020 Minute Order.) As such this motion is untimely. An application that fails to comply with CCP ; 1008 cannot be considered. (Code Civ. Proc. ; 1008(e).)

Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.



Case Number: ****6279    Hearing Date: July 20, 2020    Dept: 74

****6279 ROSA COJULUN vs LIRIA MELENDEZ

Defendant Javier Perez’ Motion for Summary Adjudication

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is denied. ;Defendant failed to specify in writing the part of the court file(s) it seeks to be judicially noticed and to make all requests for judicial notice in a separate document listing the specific items for which notice. CRC Rule 3.1306(c); CRC Rule 3.1113(1); Evid. Code ; 456.

Summary Adjudication

Perez moves for summary adjudication as to first and second causes of action of Plaintiff’s TAC on the grounds that the first and second causes of action have no merit because Plaintiff does not possess standing to bring the causes of action as each are time barred. Perez also argues for summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s third and fourth causes of action but failed to properly notice these issues. As such, the motion for summary adjudication of the 3rd and 4th causes of action is DENIED.

Defendant argues the first cause of action is barred by the statute of limitation. The court finds plaintiff’s claim is based on the same general sets of facts despite the references to various contracts may have changed over the course of filing amended complaints.

“An amended complaint is considered a new action for purposes of the statute of limitations only if the claims do not “relate back” to an earlier timely filed complaint. (Pointe San Diego Residential Community, L.P. v. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 265, 276, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 540.) Under the relation-back doctrine, an amendment relates back to the original complaint if the amendment (1) rests on the same general set of facts; (2) involves the same injury; and (3) refers to the same instrumentality. (Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 408–409, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 453, 981 P.2d 79.) An amended complaint relates back to an earlier complaint if the amended complaint is based on the same general set of facts, even if the plaintiff alleges a different legal theory or new cause of action.” (Newport Harbor Ventures, LLC v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1207, 1221–1222.)

Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of the 1st and 2nd causes of action is DENIED.



Case Number: ****6279    Hearing Date: November 04, 2019    Dept: 74

****6279 ROSA COJULUN VS LIRIA MELENDEZ ET AL

Cross Complainant Liria Melendez’ Motion to Strike Javier Perez’ Answer to the Cross Complaint

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED. While the court granted cross defendant 30 days from June 21, 2018 to file an answer, cross complainant did not request entry of default before the answer was filed.


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where BEST ALLIANCE FORECLOSURE AND LIEN SERVICES CORP. is a litigant

Latest cases where DEOS 1 TO 20 is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ANYIA ALFRED