This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/24/2020 at 01:23:25 (UTC).

ZULA TUCKER LIVING TRUST VS STANLEY D. BOWMAN; ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/11/2018 ZULA TUCKER LIVING TRUST filed a Contract - Professional Negligence lawsuit against STANLEY D BOWMAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Torrance Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ROBERT B. BROADBELT and DEIRDRE HILL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2608

  • Filing Date:

    01/11/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Professional Negligence

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ROBERT B. BROADBELT

DEIRDRE HILL

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

TUCKER ZULA

TUCKER FRED

Defendants

DOES 1 THROUGH 10 INCLUSIVE

BOWMAN STANLEY D.

Cross Defendants and Plaintiffs

FRED TUCKER

FRED TRUCKER AS TRUSTEE OF ZULA TRUCKER

ZULA TUCKER LIVING TRUST

TUCKER FRED

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL 7 DAY; FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

1/22/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL 7 DAY; FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

1/15/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF STANLEY D. BOWMAN RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

10/8/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF STANLEY D. BOWMAN RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Declaration - DECLARATION OF STANLEY D. BOWMAN RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

10/8/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF STANLEY D. BOWMAN RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Notice of Ruling

10/9/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (POST-MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: WHY...)

10/9/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (POST-MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: WHY...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [MINUTE ORDER (POST-MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE)]

9/4/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [MINUTE ORDER (POST-MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE)]

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

9/4/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (POST-MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: STATUS OF FILING, AND SERVICE OF AMEN...)

6/24/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: STATUS OF FILING, AND SERVICE OF AMEN...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: STATUS OF FILING, AND SERVICE OF AMEN...) OF 06/24/2019 AND TRIAL PREP ORDERS

6/24/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: STATUS OF FILING, AND SERVICE OF AMEN...) OF 06/24/2019 AND TRIAL PREP ORDERS

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE MOTION FOR ORDER TO ADD PLAINTIFF) OF 06/25/2019

6/25/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE MOTION FOR ORDER TO ADD PLAINTIFF) OF 06/25/2019

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: STATUS OF FILING, AND SERVICE OF AMEN...)]

6/25/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: STATUS OF FILING, AND SERVICE OF AMEN...)]

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE MOTION FOR ORDER TO ADD PLAINTIFF)

6/25/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE MOTION FOR ORDER TO ADD PLAINTIFF)

Motion for Leave - MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ADD PLAINTIFF; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF FRED TUCKER

5/23/2019: Motion for Leave - MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ADD PLAINTIFF; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF FRED TUCKER

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

4/2/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: REPRESEN...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: REPRESEN...) OF 04/02/2019

4/2/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: REPRESEN...) OF 04/02/2019

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: REPRESEN...)]

4/2/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR [MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: REPRESEN...)]

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

3/12/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE T...)

27 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/31/2020
  • Hearing01/31/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2020
  • Hearing01/31/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Jury Trial (7 day) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Jury Trial 7 day; Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/09/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Order to Show Cause Re: (why monetary sanctions and or sanction of dismissal/striking of answer should not be imposed on all parties for failure to appear on 9/4/19 and failure to hold a settlement conference and failure to prosecute/defend the action) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/09/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Post-Mediation Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/09/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Post-Mediation Status Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: why...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
46 More Docket Entries
  • 05/29/2018
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by STANLEY D. BOWMAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by ZULA TUCKER LIVING TRUST (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by STANLEY D. BOWMAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by STANLEY D. BOWMAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • DocketCross-Compl fld - Summons Issued; Filed by STANLEY D. BOWMAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by ZULA TUCKER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by ZULA TUCKER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by ZULA TUCKER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by ZULA TUCKER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: YC072608    Hearing Date: September 17, 2020    Dept: M

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. M

ZULA TUCKER LIVING TRUST,

Plaintiff,

Case No.:

YC072608

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

STANLEY D. BOWMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: September 17, 2020

Moving Parties: Cross-defendant Fred Tucker

Responding Party: None

Motion for Reconsideration

The court considered the moving papers.

RULING

The motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On January 11, 2018, Zula Tucker LT (self-represented) filed a complaint against Stanley D. Bowman for (1) legal malpractice, (2) professional negligence, and (3) fraud.

On April 11, 2018, Stanley D. Bowman filed a cross-complaint Zula Tucker Living Trust and Fred Tucker, as trustee and individually.

On May 14, 2018, Tucker (self-represented) filed an answer to the cross-complaint on behalf of the trust only.

On January 31, 2020, the court noted that on several occasions, the court had advised Tucker to obtain an attorney. The court found that the trust was required to be represented by an attorney and, as such, both the complaint and answer to cross-complaint that were filed by Tucker, as trustee, on behalf of the trust were defective. The court dismissed the complaint as to the claims of Fred Tucker, trustee, and the trust without prejudice for failure to be represented by an attorney. The court entered a default as to Fred Tucker, trustee, on the cross-complaint for failure to be represented by an attorney. The court also entered a default against Tucker individually for failure to file an answer. The court found no good cause to continue the trial. The court found for defendant and against plaintiff on the complaint. As to the only remaining claims in the cross-complaint, both cross-defendants are in default, and the court directed Bowman to prepare a CCP §585 package.

On July 8, 2020, the court denied cross-defendant Fred Tucker’s motion to quash service of the summons and cross-complaint.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

Under CCP §1008(a), “When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall 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.”

As stated by the court in Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal. App. 4th 1494, CCP §1008 governs reconsideration of court orders whether initiated by a party or the court itself. “It is the exclusive means for modifying, amending or revoking an order. That limitation is expressly jurisdictional.” Id. at 1499.

CCP §128(a) states, “Every court shall have the power to do all of the following: . . . (8) To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice. . . .

DISCUSSION

Cross-defendant Fred Tucker request that the court reconsider its order dated July 8, 2020, denying his motion to quash service of the summons and cross-complaint.

Tucker asserts that on March 26, 2020, he filed a small claims court case against the process server for fraud for stating that he personally served Tucker. Tucker contends that at the trial scheduled for January 2021 on the small claims court case he will present evidence in the form of affidavit and video showing that the service was not personal, but that the summons and cross-complaint were left in a mail box.

The court notes that the motion to quash was filed on March 2, 2020, and that the small claims case against the process server was filed on March 26, 2020. Thus, the filing of the small claims case is “new or different facts” but the court declines to reconsider its order because the fact that he filed a small claims case does not establish that Tucker was not properly served and does not rebut the presumption of facts stated in the return of a registered process server. Further, as stated in the July 8 ruling, Tucker is in default.

The motion is thus DENIED.

Cross-complainant Bowman is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: YC072608    Hearing Date: July 08, 2020    Dept: M

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. M

ZULA TUCKER LIVING TRUST, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No.:

YC072608

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

STANLEY BOWMAN,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: July 8, 2020

Moving Parties: Cross-defendant Fred Tucker

Responding Party: None

Motion to Quash Service

The court considered the moving papers.

RULING

The motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On January 11, 2018, Zula Tucker LT (self-represented) filed a complaint against Stanley D. Bowman for (1) legal malpractice, (2) professional negligence, and (3) fraud.

On April 11, 2018, Stanley D. Bowman filed a cross-complaint Zula Tucker Living Trust and Fred Tucker, as trustee and individually.

On May 14, 2018, Tucker (self-represented) filed an answer to the cross-complaint on behalf of the trust only.

On January 31, 2020, the court noted that on several occasions, the court had advised Tucker to obtain an attorney. The court found that the trust was required to be represented by an attorney and, as such, both the complaint and answer to cross-complaint that were filed by Tucker, as trustee, on behalf of the trust were defective. The court dismissed the complaint as to the claims of Fred Tucker, trustee, and the trust without prejudice for failure to be represented by an attorney. The court entered a default as to Fred Tucker, trustee, on the cross-complaint for failure to be represented by an attorney. The court also entered a default against Tucker individually for failure to file an answer. The court found no good cause to continue the trial. The court found for defendant and against plaintiff on the complaint. As to the only remaining claims in the cross-complaint, both cross-defendants are in default, and the court directed Bowman to prepare a CCP §585 package.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

A defendant may serve and file a notice of motion to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. CCP §418.10(a). CCP §418.10 provides the exclusive procedure for challenging personal jurisdiction at the outset. Roy v. Superior Court (2005) 127 Cal. App. 4th 337, 342. Although defendant is the moving party, the burden of proof is on plaintiff to defeat the motion by establishing that jurisdictional grounds exist. Mihlon v. Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal. App. 3d 703, 710.

Under Evidence Code §647, “[t]he return of a process server registered pursuant to Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 22350) of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code upon process or notice establishes a presumption, affecting the burden of producing evidence, of the facts stated in the return.” Under Evidence Code §604, “[t]he effect of a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence is to require the trier of fact to assume the existence of the presumed fact unless and until evidence is introduced which would support a finding of its nonexistence, in which case the trier of fact shall determine the existence or nonexistence of the presumed fact from the evidence and without regard to the presumption. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the drawing of any inference that may be appropriate.”

DISCUSSION

Cross-defendant Fred Tucker moving paper’s state that Fred Tucker moves “the court for an order quashing plaintiff’s proposed service of summons and complaint on defendant.” This request is confusing in many respects. First it is the plaintiff that is bringing the motion, so it appears to the court that the plaintiff is confused about whether plaintiff wants to quash its own summons. The court supposes the moving party is seeking instead to quash defendant’s summons and cross complaint on plaintiff. The court notes that all cross defendants are in default, defaults have not been set aside, consequently, cross defendant Fred Tucker is not in a position to bring said motion. For this reason alone the motion must be denied. Nonetheless, the court discusses the motion on the merits as dicta alone.

The proof of service filed on August 31, 2018, indicates that “Fred Tucker, Trustee” was personally served on July 29, 2018, at 8:12 p.m. at 1232 Via Landeta, Palos Verdes Estates, CA, by a registered process server.

Tucker asserts that the documents were left in his mailbox and that he was not personally served. His declaration only states: “I hereby move the court to quash the summons and complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over them.” He attached a darkened picture, which he contends is proof that the documents were left in his mailbox. The picture is not discernible, and he has failed to lay foundation for the document. Tucker has not provided any evidence to rebut the presumption of the facts stated in the return of a registered process server.

In any event, the court has already entered a default against Tucker individually on the cross-complaint for failing to file an answer.

The motion is therefore DENIED.

Cross-complainant Bowman is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where ZULA TUCKER LIVING TRUST is a litigant