This case was last updated from San Francisco County Superior Courts on 07/10/2020 at 01:37:15 (UTC).

FRANCINE VERDIER VS. ANN NGO ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/07/2020 FRANCINE VERDIER filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against ANN NGO. This case was filed in San Francisco County Superior Courts, Civic Center Courthouse located in San Francisco, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GARRETT L. WONG. The case status is Not Classified By Court.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******5283

  • Filing Date:

    07/07/2020

  • Case Status:

    Not Classified By Court

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • County, State:

    San Francisco, California

Judge Details

Judge

GARRETT L. WONG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

VERDIER, FRANCINE ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF FRANK PARATORE

Defendants

NGO, ANN

SINGH, TONY

NGO, FRANK

DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

KELLEY, IAN BOOTH

885 Bryant Street, 2Nd Floor

San Francisco, CA 94103

 

Court Documents

COMPLAINT

FRAUD, COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFF VERDIER, FRANCINE ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF FRANK PARATORE AS TO DEFENDANT NGO, ANN SINGH, TONY NGO, FRANK DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE NO SUMMONS ISSUED, JUDICIAL COUNCIL CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET FILED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR DEC-09-2020 PROOF OF SERVICE DUE ON SEP-08-2020 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT DUE ON NOV-16-2020

Notice to Plaintiff

NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF

SUMMONS ISSUED

SUMMONS ISSUED TO PLAINTIFF VERDIER, FRANCINE ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF FRANK PARATORE

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/09/2020

  • HearingMatter(s): CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; Location: CIVIC CENTER COURTHOUSE ROOM 610; Judge Name: GARRETT L. WONG

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2020
  • View Court Documents

  • DocketSUMMONS ISSUED TO PLAINTIFF VERDIER, FRANCINE ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF FRANK PARATORE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2020

  • FinancialPayment : CIVIL COMPLAINT/PETITION/OTHER FIRST PAPER; Amount : $450; Payment Type : CHECK ; Receipt Number : W1720708F017

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2020
  • View Court Documents

  • DocketNOTICE TO PLAINTIFF

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2020
  • View Court Documents

  • DocketFRAUD, COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFF VERDIER, FRANCINE ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF FRANK PARATORE AS TO DEFENDANT NGO, ANN SINGH, TONY NGO, FRANK DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE NO SUMMONS ISSUED, JUDICIAL COUNCIL CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET FILED CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR DEC-09-2020 PROOF OF SERVICE DUE ON SEP-08-2020 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT DUE ON NOV-16-2020 (Fee:$450.00)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number:*******5283
Case Title:FRANCINE VERDIER VS. ANN NGO ET AL
Court Date:OCT-23-2020 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:Def. Motion And Notice Of Mtn To Strike
Rulings:LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR SET FOR HEARING ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2020 AT 9:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 302, LINE 13, Motion 2 of 2DEFENDANT TONY SINGH'S Motion To StrikeDefendant Tony Singh's motion to strike is moot, because his demurrers have been sustained.As a result of the COVID-19 emergency, all attorneys and parties are required to appear remotely. Hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for Singh is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.= 302/EPS


Case Number:*******5283
Case Title:FRANCINE VERDIER VS. ANN NGO ET AL
Court Date:FEB-18-2021 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:DEMURRER to 1ST Amended COMPLAINT
Rulings:Matter on calendar for Thursday, February 18, 2021, Line 6, 1. DEFENDANT TONY SINGH'S DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT:Defendant Tony Singh's demurrer to First Amended Complaint is sustained with leave to amend as to the first cause of action for fraud and second cause of action for financial elder abuse. The demurrer is overruled as to the fifth cause of action for common counts and on all other grounds. Plaintiff has fifteen (15) days leave to amend. (The Court's complete tentative ruling has been emailed to all counsel) As a result of the COVID-19 emergency, all attorneys and parties are required to appear remotely. Hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. The defendants are required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested. =(302/EPS)


Case Number:*******5283
Case Title:FRANCINE VERDIER VS. ANN NGO ET AL
Court Date:MAY-05-2021 09:30 AM
Calendar Matter:DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT
Rulings:Set for hearing on Wednesday, May 5, 2021, 2021, Line 5,1-DEFENDANT TONY SINGH's DEMURRER to Amended COMPLAINT.Defendant Tony Singh's demurrer to the second amended complaint (SAC) is overruled in its entirety. The SAC sufficiently alleges a conversion claim. Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. (See Hodges v. County of Placer (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 537, 551 [elements of a conversion claim].) Normally, money cannot be converted, unless a specific sum capable of identification is involved. Such cases typically involve defendants who have misappropriated, commingled, or misapplied specific funds for the benefit of others (e.g., an agent who receives money on behalf of his or her principal, then refuses to account for it on demand). (See PCO, Inc. v. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 384, 395-396; see also Welco Electronics, Inc. v. Mora (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 202, 216-218.) Here, the SAC alleges a specific amount of $355,000 that was converted. (SAC, pars. 66, 67.) Further, the SAC alleges defendants held themselves out as family members and deceived Mr. Paratore into giving them sums of money. (See id. pars.11-14.) Mr. Paratore would write defendants checks and sometimes denominate them as "loans," but defendants never intended to pay back Mr. Paratore and defendants used the money for their own individual use. (Id. pars. 15-21.) Defendants exercised control over the money, converting it to their exclusive use. (Id., par. 67.) Defendants exercised such control by falsely characterizing the money as "loans" for their fake businesses. (Id. at pars. 34-35, 42, 67.) The SAC sufficiently alleges agency. (SAC, par. 6; see also Garton v. Title Ins. & Trust Co. (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 365, 367 ["Generally, an allegation of agency is an allegation of ultimate fact and is, of itself, sufficient to avoid a demurrer."].)As a result of the COVID-19 emergency, all attorneys and parties are required to appear remotely. Hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the plaintiff is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.=(302/EPS)


Case Number:*******5283
Case Title:FRANCINE VERDIER VS. ANN NGO ET AL
Court Date:MAR-23-2022 09:00 AM
Calendar Matter:Motion To Compel And Request For Sanctions
Rulings:Matter on calendar for Wednesday, March 23, 2022, Line 1, DEFENDANT TONY SINGH Motion To Compel And Request For Sanctions.Pro Tem Judge Nils Rosenquest, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion. Prior to the hearing all parties to the motion will be asked to sign a stipulation agreeing that the motion may be heard by the Pro Tem Judge. If all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the hearing will proceed before the Judge Pro Tem who will decide the motion with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. If a party appears by telephone, the stipulation may be signed via fax or consent to sign given by email. If not all parties to the motion sign the stipulation, the Pro Tem Judge will hold a hearing on the motion and, based on the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing, issue a report in the nature of a recommendation to the Dept. 302 Judge, who will then decide the motion. If a party does not appear at the hearing, the party will be deemed to have stipulated that the motion will be decided by the Pro Tem Judge with the same authority as a Superior Court Judge. The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: Hearing required. For the 9:00a.m. Discovery calendar, all attorneys and parties are required to appear remotely. Hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. To appear at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link (DISCOVERY, DEPT 301 @ 9:00AM), or dial the corresponding phone number.Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to nrosenquest@earthlink.net with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. If parties have arranged for a court reporter to appear, please include the following in your email: (1) ensure that they are California Certified Shorthand Reporters; (2) the reporter's full contact information [name, CSR number, personal work email, and phone number]. If the reporter is not a California Certified Shorthand Reporter, the transcript cannot be certified for use in California courts. If the tentative ruling is not contested, the parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Pro Tem hearing the motion and the Pro Tem will sign an order confirming the tentative ruling. The prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must e-mail it to the Judge Pro Tem. =(302/RBU).


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases

Latest cases represented by Lawyer KELLEY, IAN

JEFFREY IBARRA, et al vs. MICHAEL D. GAVNEY, et al

San Mateo County Superior Courts | Personal Injury | 21-CIV-05623 | 2021-10-19

People of the State of California et al. v. Dodg Corp. et al.

California Courts Of Appeal | Other | A163757 | 2021-10-19

RICKY SIMS VS. 47 MADDUX AVENUE IRREVOCABLE TRUST ET AL

San Francisco County Superior Courts | Property | CGC21592651 | 2021-06-08

Why is this public record being published online?

UniCourt uses cookies to improve your online experience, for more information please see our Privacy Policy. By continuing to use this website, you agree to UniCourt’s General Disclaimer, Terms of Service, Cancellation and Refund Policy, Privacy Policy, and Public Records Policy. If you do not agree with these terms, then do not use our website and/or services.