This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/08/2019 at 04:38:03 (UTC).

VECRON EXIM LTD. VS IMMERSIVE PLAY INC.,

Case Summary

On 08/22/2017 VECRON EXIM LTD filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against IMMERSIVE PLAY INC . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DUKES, ROBERT A. and PETER A. HERNANDEZ. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9570

  • Filing Date:

    08/22/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DUKES, ROBERT A.

PETER A. HERNANDEZ

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

VECRON EXIM LTD.

IMMERSIVE PLAY INC.

INTERWORKS UNLIMITED INC.

ZORN IVAN ESTEBAN CISNEROS

MARTINS DE CARVALHO JR. MARCO ANTONIO

Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

MARINS DE CARVALHO MARCO ANTONIO JR.

IMMERSIVE PLAY INC.

INTERWORKS UNLIMITED INC.

ZORN IVAN ESTEBAN CISNEROS

MARTINS DE CARVALHO MARCO ANTONIO JR.

MARTINS DE CARVALHO JR. MARCO ANTONIO

DE CARVALHO JR. MARCO ANTONIO MARTINS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

GUERRINI JOHN D.

GUERRINI JOHN DONALD

Defendant Attorneys

HSU ROGER C. ESQ.

HINES JAMES ANDREW JR. LAW OFFICES OF

HUGHES KEVIN D. ESQ

HSU ROGER C ESQ.

Cross Defendant Attorneys

HINDS JAMES ANDREW JR

HUGHES KEVIN DOUGLAS ESQ

 

Court Documents

Civil Case Cover Sheet

8/22/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons

8/22/2017: Summons

Complaint

8/22/2017: Complaint

Unknown

8/22/2017: Unknown

Notice of Case Management Conference

8/23/2017: Notice of Case Management Conference

Unknown

10/10/2017: Unknown

Unknown

10/12/2017: Unknown

Unknown

10/19/2017: Unknown

Unknown

10/25/2017: Unknown

Cross-Complaint

11/13/2017: Cross-Complaint

Answer

11/13/2017: Answer

Summons

11/13/2017: Summons

Minute Order

11/21/2017: Minute Order

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

11/29/2017: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Unknown

11/29/2017: Unknown

Case Management Statement

11/29/2017: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

12/4/2017: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

12/21/2017: Minute Order

76 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/07/2019
  • DocketWitness List; Filed by Marco Antonio Martins De Carvalho, Jr. (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • DocketExhibit List; Filed by Interworks Unlimited, Inc. (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • DocketTrial Brief; Filed by Marco Antonio Martins De Carvalho, Jr. (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • DocketMotion in Limine (DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE NO. ONE TO BAR PLAINTIFF FROM INTRODUCING EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF ITS COMPLAINT ON THE GROUNDS THAT PLAINTIFF IS A FOREIGN CORPORATION NOT QUEALIFIED TO DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA); Filed by Marco Antonio Martins De Carvalho, Jr. (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Docketat 10:11 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Nunc Pro Tunc Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Nunc Pro Tunc Order;)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Nunc Pro Tunc Order;)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference;)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • DocketWitness List; Filed by Vecron Exim, LTD. (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
137 More Docket Entries
  • 10/12/2017
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/10/2017
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/10/2017
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by Vecron Exim, LTD. (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/23/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/23/2017
  • DocketNotice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Vecron Exim, LTD. (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • DocketComplaint Filed

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Vecron Exim, LTD. (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****9570    Hearing Date: December 19, 2019    Dept: O

Roger C. Hsu, Charles Sutton, and the Law Offices of Roger C. Hsu’s motion to be relieved as counsel of Interworks Unlimited, Inc. is GRANTED. The order shall take effect when the proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the court clerk is filed with the court.

Good cause exists to grant the motion based on any of the grounds under Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-700(C). Rule 3-700(c) provides that an attorney may withdraw based on any of the following:

  1. The client (a) insists upon presenting a claim or defense that is not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, or (b) seeks to pursue an illegal course of conduct, or (c) insists that the member pursue a course of conduct that is illegal or that is prohibited under these rules or the State Bar Act, or (d) by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively, or (e) insists, in a matter not pending before a tribunal, that the member engage in conduct that is contrary to the judgment and advice of the member but not prohibited under these rules or the State Bar Act, or (f) breaches an agreement or obligation to the member as to expenses or fees.

  2. The continued employment is likely to result in a violation of these rules or of the State Bar Act; or

  3. The inability to work with co-counsel indicates that the best interests of the client likely will be served by withdrawal; or

  4. The member's mental or physical condition renders it difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively; or

  5. The client knowingly and freely assents to termination of the employment; or

(6) The member believes in good faith, in a proceeding pending before a tribunal, that the tribunal will find the existence of other good cause for withdrawal.

The notice of motion and motion and the declaration shall be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case. The notice may be by personal service or mail. If the notice is served on the client by mail under code of civil procedure section 1013, it shall be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing that either (1) the service address is the current residence or business address of the client or (2) the service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days prior to the filing of the motion to be relieved.

“Current” means that the address was confirmed within 30 days prior to the filing of the motion to be relieved. Merely demonstrating that the notice was sent to the client's last known address and was not returned will not, by itself, be sufficient to demonstrate that the address is current. If the service is by mail, Code of Civil Procedure section 1011(b) shall apply. (CRC 3.1362(d).)

The attorney declaration demonstrates good cause for withdrawal based on a non-waivable conflict of interest. The moving counsel has also complied with the requirements of Rule 3.1362, serving the Defendant Interworks Unlimited, Inc., their clients by mail with copies of the motion papers at the client’s last known address confirmed within the past 30 days.

The motion then is GRANTED. The order shall take effect when the proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the court clerk under section 1011(b) is filed with the Court.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Interworks Unlimited Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer HSU ROGER C.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer HUGHES KEVIN DOUGLAS