On 01/03/2017 THEODORE MORGA filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against SABRINA RODRIGUEZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LORI ANN FOURNIER, MARGARET MILLER BERNAL and BRIAN F. GASDIA. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
LORI ANN FOURNIER
MARGARET MILLER BERNAL
BRIAN F. GASDIA
CALIBER HOME LOANS INC.
CONFORTI & CARRAS PC
OPDAHL NEIL E
PACHECO GEORGE B.
BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER FREDER & WEISS
1/3/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet
1/3/2017: Notice of Case Management Conference
2/15/2017: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
3/13/2017: Notice of Lis Pendens
3/29/2017: Substitution of Attorney
5/24/2017: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
5/24/2017: Case Management Statement
5/30/2017: Case Management Statement
6/8/2017: Minute Order
8/16/2017: Minute Order
10/25/2017: Minute Order
at 09:30 AM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Non-Jury Trial)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Stipulation and Order (to Continue Trial); Filed by SABRINA RODRIGUEZ (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")Read MoreRead Less
at 1:30 PM in Department C; Ruling on Submitted MatterRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ((Ruling on Submitted Matter: HEARING DATE OF 11/08/18;)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter: HEARING DATE OF 11/08/18;) of 12/05/2018 and Order dated 12/05/18); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Order (re: ruling on submitted matter of 11/08/18); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 09:30 AM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's MotionRead MoreRead Less
at 1:30 PM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Ex-Parte ProceedingsRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service (BY MAIL ); Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-ComplRead MoreRead Less
Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl (BY SUBSTITUTED SERVICE ON 01/16/17 Declaration of Diligence and Proof of Service by Mail attached ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by THEODORE MORGA (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice-Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by THEODORE MORGA (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Summons Filed; Filed by Plaintiff, & Plaintiff in Pro PerRead MoreRead Less
Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Plaintiff, & Plaintiff in Pro PerRead MoreRead Less
Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by THEODORE MORGA (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: VC066039 Hearing Date: July 02, 2020 Dept: SEC
MORGA v. RODRIGUEZ
CASE NO.: VC066039
Defendant/Cross-Complainant SABRINA RODRIGUEZ’s motion for summary judgment as to the Complaint is GRANTED. Defendant/Cross-Complainant SABRINA RODRIGUEZ’s motion for summary judgment as to the Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. CCP § 437c.
Moving Party to give notice.
This action for breach of contract was filed by Plaintiff THEODORE MORGA on January 3, 2017.
Defendant/Cross-Complainant SABRINA RODRIGUEZ (“Defendant”) moves for summary judgment in her favor as to: (1) Plaintiff’s Complaint; and (2) Defendant’s Cross-Complaint.
Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts one sole cause of action for breach of contract. Defendant’s Cross-Complaint asserts three causes of action for quiet title; declaratory relief; and partition.
A “deemed admitted” order establishes that a nonresponding party has responded to the propounding party’s requests for admissions by admitting the truth of all matters contained therein. (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 979.) Party admissions are given “an unusual deference in summary judgment proceedings. An admission is binding unless there is a credible explanation for the inconsistent positions taken by a party. [Citations.]” (FPI Development Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 396.) When an admission against a party’s own interest “becomes relevant to the determination, on motion for summary judgment, of whether or not there exist triable issues of fact between the parties, it is entitled to and should receive a kind of deference not normally accorded evidentiary allegations in affidavits.” (D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 22.)
In the case at bar, on October 11, 2018, this Court GRANTED Defendant’s unopposed Motion to Deem Matters in Requests for Admissions propounded on Plaintiff Admitted. Thus, Plaintiff has admitted that:
1. Defendant placed a down payment towards the purchase price of the 12032 South Circle Drive, Whittier, California 90601 property (“Subject Property”)
2. Defendant and Plaintiff jointly paid the mortgage, taxes, and insurance of the Subject Property.
3. Defendant owns 50% of the Subject Property in fee simple.
4. Defendant does not owe Plaintiff $21,000.00.
5. Plaintiff never transferred title of his Nissan 370Z to Defendant.
6. Defendant never used Plaintiff’s personal credit cards for her personal use.
7. Plaintiff and Defendant agreed that Defendant would later be added on title to the Subject Property.
Based on the deemed admissions, Plaintiff has no evidence in support of the required elements of his cause of action for breach of contract, or to rebut Defendant’s claims for quiet title, declaratory relief, and partition—these causes of action “have no merit” because the required elements cannot be established. (See CCP §437c(f)(1).) As a matter of law, every required element of these causes of action have been negated, requiring that summary judgment be granted in favor of Defendant. (Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334.)
Plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of contract fails, and Defendant prevails on her claims for quiet title; declaratory relief; and partition. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Complaint is GRANTED, and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases