COMPLAINT FILED May 11, 2023 (2024)

 Preview
 Filing # 172905664 E-Filed 05/11/2023 06:14:56 AM IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 2023SC001996 RAPID AUTO GLASS LLC a/a/o David Warrick, Plaintiff, VS. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, COMPLAINT Plaintiff, RAPID AUTO GLASS LLC a/a/o David Warrick by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby sues the Defendants, GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY and avers as follows: 1 This is an action for damages which is less than the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), exclusive of costs, interest and attorneys' fees. 2. At all times material to this cause of action, Plaintiff, RAPID AUTO GLASS LLC , was and is a corporation, registered and authorized to transact business in the State of Florida, with agents for the transaction of its customary business in SEMINOLE County, Florida. ** E-FILED: GRANT MALOY, CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT SEMINOLE COUNTY, FL 05/11/2023 06:14:53 AM.****3 At all times material to this cause of action, the Defendant(s), GEICO CASUALTYCOMPANY, GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, GEICO GENERAL INSURANCECOMPANY, GEICO COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AND GOVERNMENTEMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY were and are foreign insurance corporations dulylicensed to transact insurance business in the State of Florida, and maintained agents for thetransaction of its customary business in SEMINOLE County, Florida. 4 At all times material hereto, David Warrick was and continues to be a resident ofthe State of Florida and was insured under a policy of motor vehicle insurance coverage(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Policy”) issued by one of the Defendants, GEICO CASUALTYCOMPANY, GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, GEICO GENERAL INSURANCECOMPANY, GEICO COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AND GOVERNMENTEMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY foreign corporations, to the insured in the State ofFlorida or, alternatively, benefits due under the Policy are payable in the State of Florida. 5 Plaintiff does not have a certified copy of the policy of insurance to attach to thisComplaint; however, Defendant is in possession of the policy of insurance. 6. The Policy is well known to the Defendants, a copy of which is in the possessionof the Defendant(s) and is incorporated herein by reference. The Policy includes coverage for therepair and/or replacement of any glass and/or windshield damage to the insured's vehicle asprovided for under the comprehensive and/or collision insurance portion of the Policy. 7 That on or about 3/4/2023, the insured's vehicle sustained damage to its windshieldand/or other glass damage.8 That as a direct and proximate result of the glass damage sustained to the insured'svehicle, the insured incurred reasonable expenses for the repair and/or replacement of the glass,which was provided by the Plaintiff. 9 Prior to this litigation, Plaintiff timely and properly submitted its invoice for thereasonable repair and/or replacement of the glass at the customary rate in the community. 10. Defendant did not reimburse Plaintiff in full for the repairs to the insured’s vehicle. 11. Defendant did not have a properly licensed adjuster in the State of Florida processand reimburse Plaintiff's bill. 12. Defendant delegated its obligation to have a licensed adjuster auditing andprocessing compensable insurance claims in the State of Florida, to an unlicensed person/entity,and did not reimburse Plaintiff in full. 13. The unlicensed person/entity did not reimburse Plaintiff in full for the invoice pricesubmitted for services rendered to the insured. 14. Defendants, GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, GEICO INDEMNITYCOMPANY, GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO COUNTY MUTUALINSURANCE COMPANY, AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANYhave breached the contract of insurance by refusing to pay the full amount of benefits due for glassrepair and/or replacement in accordance with the provisions of its collision and/or comprehensivecoverage, and any other available coverage, as required under the Policy and under Florida law. 15. That by virtue of an assignment of benefits (the “Assignment,”) the insured hasassigned and the Plaintiff has agreed to accept any and all insurance benefits available under theautomobile Policy with the Defendant(s), including benefits under the collision and/orcomprehensive coverages of the Policy and the right to pursue a cause of action for the paymentof those benefits, if so required. 16. Plaintiff has standing to pursue this action directly against Defendant and to collectall reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Florida Statute §§ 627.7288 and 627.428, by virtue of anAssignment of Benefits assigning the rights, title, and interest under said policy of insurance toPlaintiff, for glass repairs or replacements related to the subject motor vehicle loss and damage. 17. Plaintiff has standing to pursue this action directly against Defendant and to collectall reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Florida Statute §§ 627.7288 and 627.428, by virtue of anequitable or implied assignment (hereinafter "equitable assignment") that exists between theInsured and Plaintiff, wherein the patient assigned the rights to any potential benefits and proceedsunder the policy of insurance Defendant issued. 18. Plaintiff has standing to pursue this action directly against Defendant and to collectall reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Florida Statute §§ 627.7288 and 627.428, as the realparty in interest, as Plaintiff has a sufficient stake in the controversy addressed in this count, willbe effected by the outcome of this matter, and is the actual party that stands to lose or gain by theprosecution of this lawsuit. 19. Due to fees and limitations applied by the unlicensed adjusters, the insured remainspersonally liable for the total amounts due, and as a result, would derive a direct benefit from theentry of judgment from this Honorable Court ordering Defendants to pay service fees, interest andattorneys’ fees, even if the Defendants paid all of the benefits owed prior to the entry of judgment. 20. The Plaintiff and the insured have complied with all provisions of the Policy issuedby the Defendants, GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY,GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCECOMPANY, AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY and bothPlaintiff and the insured have performed all conditions precedent necessary to bring this action, orthe same have been waived by the Defendants. 21. As a direct result of the Defendants’ failure and refusal to issue benefits inaccordance with the Policy and Florida law, the Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorney torepresent it in this action, and is hereby entitled to and seeks to recover its reasonable attorneys’fees pursuant to Section 627.428, Florida Statutes. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for insurance benefits, together with pre-judgment interest thereon, all interest on any past benefits not timely paid, costs and attorney’sfees, including a contingency risk multiplier, pursuant to §627.428, Florida Statutes, and§627.7288, Florida Statutes, and costs pursuant to §92.231 and §57.041, Florida Statutes, and suchfurther relief as the Court may deem just and proper. JURY TRIAL REQUEST Plaintiff requests a trial by jury. /s/ Dalton Gray Dalton Gray, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 1002992 Chad A. Barr, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 55365 Law Office of Chad A. Barr, P.A. 238 N. Westmonte Dr., Suite 200 Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 digservice@chadbarrlaw.com (Primary) Dalton@chadbarrlaw.com (Secondary)EXHIBIT “A”RAPID AUTO GLASS4630 S KIRKMAN ROADSTE 344ORLANDO, FL 32811PH:(407) 906-3274 FAX:(866) 600-0624 Federal Tax ID: 81-3041258 ° Florida MV#t MV95958PIOH: Cust State Tax ID: ust Fed Tax ID: Workorder: W004943Taken By Ship Via: Date: 3/7/2023installer: Time: 12:00 AMSalesRep: Paula Adv. Code: Bill To: Geico Geico Insurance (Safelite) David Warrick PO BOX 182276 39152 heights avenue COLUMBUS, OH 43218 ZEPHYRHILLS. FL 33542 - (800) 510-2291 (724) 691-6380 Insurance Proof Of Loss Insurance Company : Geico Insurance (Safelite) Insurance Phone (800) 510-2291 Claim # : 097595 Policy 6084026662 Verified Name David Warrick Loss Date : 3/4/2023 Effective Date Expires Cause Agent : Phone : Location Agent Name ; Deductible ; Vehicle Information Make: Toyota Model Style: Prius 4 Door Hatchback Year: 2019 Odometer: VIN: JTDKARf*ckK3089842 License: Qty Part Number Description FW04990GTYNCOM Windshield-(Rain/Light Sensor,LDWS,Forward Collision Alert.Solar) 1 250H 250 Per NAGS Hour (3.5 Hours) 1 HAH000004 Adhesive-(2.0.Urethane.Dam,Primer) Please Remit Payment within 30 days of invoice date Ail Invoices not paid in 30 days will be turned over to the legal department for collections. Thank You for your patronage Mobile Instructions: # AUTHORIZATION TO PAY ASSIGNMENT OF BENEFITS | HEREBY ASSIGN ANY AND ALL INSURANCH. RIGHTS, BENEFITS, Collect From Customel_______ 80.00] ICALSES OF ACTIO AND PROCEEDS: AG INST My INSURANCE COMPANY TO RAPID AUTO] GLASS, 1b OMAKE VHS ASSIGNMENT BN CONSIDLRA TION OF RAPID AUTO. GLASS REEMENT ro] PERFORM SERVICES AND OTHERWISE PERFORM HS. OBLIGATIONS TINDER THs. CONTRACT INCLUDING NOT REQUIRING FULT PAYMENT AT THI ria OF SERVICE 1 UNDERSTAND THAT 1 REMAIN LIABLT. FOR ANY PORTION NOT PAID BY MY INSURANCE COMPANY Customer's Signature: 2 nw LVL BED 3 ot] 23RAPID AUTO GLASS4630 S KIRKMAN ROADSTE 344 wo# woo4943ORLANDO, FL 32811PH:(407) 906-3274 FAX:(866) 600-0624 Federal Tax ID: 81-3041258 Florida MV#: MVvg95958P/O#: Cust State Tax ID: Invoice: 1004943 Cust Fed Tax ID: Ship Via: Date: 3/8/2023Taken By:Installer: Time: 01:15 AMSalesRep: Paula Adv. Code: Bill To: Geico Geico Insurance (Safelite) David Warrick PO BOX 182276 39152 heights avenue COLUMBUS, OH 43218 ZEPHYRHILLS, FL 33542 (800) 510-2291 (724) 691-6380 Insurance Proof Of Loss Insurance Company Geico Insurance (Safelite) Insurance Phone (800) 510-2291 Claim # 097595 Policy 6084026662 Verified Name David Warrick Loss Date 3/4/2023 Effective Date Expires : Cause Agent Phone : Location Agent Name Deductible Vehicle Information Make: Toyota Model Style: Prius 4 Door Hatchback Year: 2019 Odometer: VIN: JTDKARf*ckK3089842 License: aty Part Number Description List Sell Total 1 FWO4990GTYN Windshield-(Rain/Light $2,659.22 $2,659.22 Sensor,LDWS, Forward Collision Alert,Solar) 1 250H 250 Per NAGS Hour $875.00 $875.00 $875.00 1 HAH000004 Adhesive-(2.0,Urethane, Dam, Primer) $95.00 $95.00 $95.00 ADAS ADAS $1,300.00 $1,300.00 $1,300.00 Mobile Fee Mobile Fee $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 Administrative Fee Administrative Fee $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 Shop Supplies Shop Supplies $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 Storage and disposal Storage and Disposal Fee $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 Please Remit Payment within 30 days of invoice date All Invoices not paid in 30 days will be turned over to the legal department for collections. Thank You for your patronage AUTHORIZATION TO PAY Net30 On Account: JASSIGNMENT OF BENEFITS HEREBY ASSIGN ANY AND ALL INSURANCE RIGHTS, BENEFITS, ICAUSES OF ACTIONS AND PROCEEDS AGAINST MY INSURANCE COMPANY TO RAPID AUTO] IGLASS. | MAKE THIS ASSIGNMENT IN CONSIDERATION OF RAPID AUTO GLASS AGREEMENT TO} PERFORM SERVICES AND OTHERWISE PERFORM ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THIS CONTRACT. Sub Total: $5,259.22 INCLUDING NOT REQUIRING FULL PAYMENT AT THE TIME OF SERVICE. I UNDERSTAND THAT I] REMAIN LIABLE FOR ANY PORTION NOT PAID BY MY INSURANCE COMPANY, Tax: $179.02 Total: $5,438.24 Customer's Signature: Balance: $5,438.24

Related Contentin Seminole County

Case

FLORIDA SPINE ASSOCIATES -VS- GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Aug 13, 2024 |WAYNE CULVER |19P - PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION |2024SC006622

Case

OWNORTH PL -VS- ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURA

Aug 14, 2024 |SYLVIA GRUNOR |19P - PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION |2024SC006631

Case

KENDRA LASHAY COWART -VS- JOSHUA ALEXANDER HOUVOURAS

Aug 15, 2024 |SUSAN STACY |08 - AUTO NEGLIGENCE |2024CA001576

Case

ADRIANA AGUILERA PEREZ -VS- THE HARVEY WEINSTEIN COMPANY LLC

Aug 12, 2024 |SUSAN STACY |11 - OTHER NEGLIGENCE |2024CA001555

Case

ALIGN TO SHINE CHIROPRACTIC LLC -VS- ASSURANCEAMERICA INSURANCE COMPAN

Aug 14, 2024 |WAYNE CULVER |19P - PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION |2024SC006630

Case

BANG AUTOGLASS LLC -VS- HIROAD ASSURANCE COMPANY

Case

CENTRAL PALM BEACH PHYSICIANS AND -VS- GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY

Aug 13, 2024 |WAYNE CULVER |19P - PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION |2024SC006620

Case

CENTRAL PALM BEACH PHYSICIANS AND -VS- GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY

Aug 13, 2024 |WAYNE CULVER |19P - PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION |2024SC006625

Case

ACCIDENT PLUS INJURY CARE ROCKLED -VS- GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY

Aug 14, 2024 |SYLVIA GRUNOR |19P - PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION |2024SC006680

Ruling

JEANETT GERTRUDIZ VS MV TRANSPORTATION, INC.

Aug 12, 2024 |Renee C. Reyna |22STCV03446

Case Number: 22STCV03446 Hearing Date: August 12, 2024 Dept: 29 Gertrudiz v. MV Transportation 22STCV03446 Defendants Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer. Tentative The motion is granted. Background On January 27, 2022, Plaintiff Jeanett Gertrudiz (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant MV Transportation, Inc. (Defendant), and Does 1 to 50, for Damages from an injury sustained while aboard Defendants bus on January 31, 2020. On April 7, 2022, Defendant filed an answer. On June 3, 2024, Defendant filed this motion for leave to file an amended answer. Plaintiff filed an opposition on July 8, and Defendant filed a reply on July 15. This motion was originally set for hearing on July 22 and was continued (as a result of the cyber attack experienced by Los Angeles Superior Court) to August 12. Trial is set for August 27. Legal Authority CCP § 473(a)(1) provides, in relevant part: The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code. This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature. The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment. (See California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281, overruled on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390.) Under CRC Rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. Under CRC Rule 3.1324(b), a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, a long, unwarranted and unexcused delay in presenting it may be a good reason for denial. In most cases, the factors for timeliness are: (1) lack of diligence in discovering the facts or in offering the amendment after knowledge of them; and (2) the effect of the delay on the adverse party. If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.) Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.) Discussion Defendant requests leave to amend its answer to add an affirmative defense of Sudden Emergency. This defense is based on the deposition testimony of a critical witness, Linda Hinojos, on April 10, 2024. (Odabachian Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendant contends, in effect, that the driver of its bus applied the brakes suddenly to avoid hitting a pedestrian, Ms. Hinojos. Defendant requested a stipulation from Plaintiff on May 29. (Id., ¶ 7 & Exh. B.) Defendant satisfies the procedural requirements for the motion under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a) & (b). Plaintiff has been adequately placed on notice of the nature of the proposed amendment and where it appears in the proposed amended answer. Plaintiff argues that the late amendment, at this time, shortly before trial, would be prejudicial to her. Based on the evidence in the record before the Court, however, Defendant acted reasonably promptly after the deposition of Ms. Hinojos. Plaintiff has been on notice of the testimony of Ms. Hinojos since April, as well as of Defendants request to amend since May. It is unclear to the Court what Plaintiff did, or failed to do, in preparation for trial in reliance on the absence of an affirmative defense of Sudden Emergency, but if Plaintiff can make a sufficient showing of reliance and prejudice, Plaintiff may seek to continue trial and reopen discovery on this limited issue. On this record, and in these circ*mstances, the Court exercises its discretion to grant the motion for leave to amend. Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff contends that the motion for leave to amend should be denied because the Sudden Emergency doctrine is not applicable, and that therefore the new proposed affirmative defense has no merit, the Court declines to consider or rule on the merits of the defense in connection with this motion for leave to amend. The motion is granted. Conclusion The Court GRANTS Defendant MV Transportation, Inc.s motion for leave to file an amended answer. The Court GRANTS Defendant leave to file the First Amended Answer attached to its moving papers within 5 days of the hearing on this motion. Moving Party is to give notice. The Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice.

Ruling

LAURIE DIETRICH vs. ISABELLA FLORESMERRITT et al

Jul 29, 2024 |21-CVC-12166

Defendant SUTTER VALLEY HOSPITALS dba SUTTER AMADOR HOSPITAL’s unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment or in the alternative Summary Adjudication is GRANTED. A motion for summary judgment shall be granted when the moving party demonstrates “that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. “CCP §437c(c). In making its decision the court may rely on affidavits, declarations, or matters of which judicial notice may be taken. CCP §437c(b). Once the moving party has met the burden of negating one necessary element of a claim, the responding party must then show that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the questioned cause of action. Otherwise summary judgment must be granted. CCP §437c(o)(2). Any opposition to a motion for summary judgment must be filed and served not less than 14 days preceding the noticed date of hearing. CCP§437c(a)(2). The moving party has met its burden and Plaintiff has filed a non-opposition. Moving party is ordered to prepare a judgment and dismissal conforming to the court’s order within ten (10) days of the hearing date. If a party intends to appear and contest the tentative ruling, they must notify the court by leaving a message at (209) 257-2692, and notify opposing counsel, no later than 4:00 p.m. on the day preceding the hearing. Unless a hearing is requested, this ruling is effective immediately. Neither further notice of the ruling nor a formal order per CRC 3.1312 is required.

Ruling

FCS057573 - PEREZ, HEIDI JUDITH VS BOOKER, WESLEY (DMS)

Aug 12, 2024 |FCS057573

Ruling

JOHN DOE VS MICHAEL MOZILO, ET AL.

Aug 12, 2024 |22STCV06115

Case Number: 22STCV06115 Hearing Date: August 12, 2024 Dept: 8 Tentative Ruling¿on Motion to Compel 2nd IME of Plaintiff ¿¿ HEARING DATE: August 12 2024 ¿¿ CASE NUMBER: 22STCV06115 ¿¿ CASE NAME: John Doe v. Loyola Marymount University, et al. ¿¿ MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Loyola Marymount University ¿¿ RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, John Doe. ¿¿ TRIAL DATE: October 14, 2024 ¿¿ MOTION:¿ (1) LMUs Continued ex parte Application for Order to Compel Mental Health IME of Plaintiff ¿ Tentative Ruling: (1) GRANT limited 2nd IME of Plaintiff on either August 27 or 28, 2024, addressing events since Dr. Alexanians December 9, 2022 audio recorded mental health interview. Dr. Varis mental status interview of Plaintiff shall be audio recorded. Also, GRANT an order permitting Dr. Vari to have two specific tests of Plaintiff conducted on the same day as the interview: the MMPI III and the MCMI IV. The Court is inclined to limit Dr. Varis mental status interview of Plaintiff to 2 hours, exclusive of the additional time needed for the MMPI III and the MCMI IV. The standardized tests are to be administered by a California-based professional under Dr. Varis supervision; the test results including true and correct copies of the answer sheets and audio recording of the interview shall be provided to Plaintiffs counsel within 5 calendar days. The Court would also be inclined to preclude evidence or argument at trial of the brevity of Dr. Varis IME, such as evidence or argument that he took only an abbreviated family and medical history of the Plaintiff or that he only spent 2 hours with Plaintiff. Dr. Vari would be permitted to ask briefly about an event or incident dated prior to December 9, 2022, but the basis for the Court permitting this second defense IME is to update the examiner on events, treatment, emotional distress damages, and other matters since Dr. Alexanians IME. The Court will also need to discuss with counsel the potential impact of Plaintiffs other pending legal matter. With this continued hearing and supplemental briefing and evidence, the Court has a sufficient record before it to balance the rights of a defendant to conduct discovery -- of a Plaintiff seeking substantial economic and non-economic damages -- and the rights of that Plaintiff to privacy, intrusion, and protection from multiple or duplicative examinations by multiple defendants in the same lawsuit.

Ruling

HACKWORTH, et al. vs. BERKEY

Aug 12, 2024 |CVPO21-0197833

HACKWORTH, ET AL. VS. BERKEYCase Number: CVPO21-0197833This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of bankruptcy. As previously noted, theCourt is in receipt of a Stipulated Judgment in this matter. However, the Court remains withoutjurisdiction because this matter is currently stayed by the bankruptcy court. This Court will needan order granting the parties relief from the stay before this Court can execute the StipulatedJudgment. The parties have filed Case Management Statements indicating that the parties areseeking relief from the bankruptcy stay so that this matter may be resolved. This matter iscontinued to Tuesday, November 12, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 64 for review regardingstatus of bankruptcy. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

Ruling

FCS057573 - PEREZ, HEIDI JUDITH VS BOOKER, WESLEY (DMS)

Aug 14, 2024 |FCS057573

Ruling

ANDREW RAMIREZ VS DOUBLETREE BY HILTON, A BUSINESS ORGANIZATION FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.

Aug 13, 2024 |22STCV20626

Case Number: 22STCV20626 Hearing Date: August 13, 2024 Dept: 32 PLEASE NOTE: Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that partys intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsels contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely. Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. TENTATIVE RULING DEPT: 32 HEARING DATE: August 13, 2024 CASE NUMBER: 22STCV20626 MOTIONS: Motion to be Relieved as Counsel MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Andrew Ramirezs Counsel OPPOSING PARTY: None BACKGROUND Plaintiff Andrew Ramirezs (Plaintiff) counsel of record, Alan Finestone (Counsel), moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff. Counsel contends relief is necessary because there has been a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. No opposition has been filed for this motion. LEGAL STANDARD To be granted relief as counsel, counsel must comply with California Rules of Court (CRC) 3.1362. Even where grounds for termination exist, attorneys seeking to withdraw must comply with the procedures set forth in California Rule of Professional Conduct (CRPC) 3.700 and are subject to discipline for failure to do so. CRPC 3.700(B) lists various grounds for mandatory withdrawal. An attorney's right to terminate the attorney-client relationship and withdraw from a case is not absolute. (See Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 197; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398.) The decision whether to grant or deny an application for withdrawal is within the court's discretion, and it does not abuse that discretion by denying the application on the ground that the attorney's withdrawal would work injustice upon a third party. (Hodcarriers, Bldg. and Common Laborers Local Union No. 89 v. Miller (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 391.) The rules have been liberally construed to protect clients. (Vann v. Shilleh, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d 192.) An attorney, either with client's consent or court's approval, may withdraw from a case when withdrawal can be accomplished without undue prejudice to client's interests; however, an attorney shall not withdraw from employment until the member has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, complying with rule 3-700(D), and complying with applicable laws and rules. (CRPC 3.700(A)(2).) A lawyer violates his or her ethical mandate by abandoning a client (Pineda v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 753, 758 759), or by withdrawing at a critical point and thereby prejudicing the clients case. (CRPC 3.700(A)(2); Vann v. Shilleh, supra.) DISCUSSION Counsel has filed forms MC-051 and MC-052 and has lodged with the Court a copy of the proposed order on form MC-053 as required. (Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.) Counsel states the instant motion is filed for the following reasons: I am the attorney of record for the plaintiff herein, and as such, I have personal knowledge of the following facts and could confidently testify thereto. As a result of various health problems, I am unable to represent the plaintiff at trial. I have attempted to withdraw as plaintiff's attorney. Mr. Ramirez has repeatedly refused to sign a substitution of attorney and refused to obtain a new attorney. Plaintiff has refused to prepare a response to discovery. Plaintiff has failed and refused to cooperate with the prosecution of his case. I am mentally and physically unable to prosecute his claim at trial. I have repeatedly attempted to make an appointment with the plaintiff to prepare responses to defendant. I have prepared a substitution of attorney, but plaintiff refuses to sign and return it. (MC-052.) The Court finds that this is a valid reason for withdrawal. (See Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16.)¿¿¿ Counsel has provided information for all future proceedings in this case. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to relieve counsel. Counsel shall provide notice of the Courts ruling and file proofs of service of such.

Ruling

Amarant vs. Monarch Learning Center Charter School, et al.

Aug 12, 2024 |23CV-0202392

AMARANT VS. MONARCH LEARNING CENTER CHARTER SCHOOL, ET AL.Case Number: 23CV-0202392This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of responsive pleadings and trial setting. The SecondAmended Complaint was filed pursuant to stipulation and order on May 30, 2024. Defendants filed their Answeron June 18, 2024. The Court designates this matter as a Plan III case and intends to set the matter for trial no laterthan June 3, 2025. Defendant has posted jury fees but Plaintiff has not. Plaintiff is granted 10 days leave to postjury fees. A failure to post jury fees in that time will be deemed a waiver of the right to a jury. The parties areordered to meet and confer regarding trial dates and to appear to provide the Court with available trialdates.

Document

ANA PEDROSA -VS- EMANUEL LEWIS HERNANDEZ

Aug 12, 2024 |DONNA M GOERNER |08 - AUTO NEGLIGENCE |2024CA001542

Document

CENTRAL PALM BEACH PHYSICIANS AND -VS- GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY

Aug 13, 2024 |WAYNE CULVER |19P - PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION |2024SC006623

Document

BANG AUTOGLASS LLC -VS- HIROAD ASSURANCE COMPANY

Aug 14, 2024 |WAYNE CULVER |19P - PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION |2024SC006658

Document

Aug 13, 2024 |WAYNE CULVER |19P - PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION |2024SC006604

Document

THE KIDWELL GROUP LLC -VS- AMERICAN INTEGRITY INSURANCE COMP

Aug 14, 2024 |WAYNE CULVER |19P - PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION |2024SC006646

Document

COMPREHENSIVE MD LLC -VS- GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Aug 12, 2024 |WAYNE CULVER |19P - PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION |2024SC006567

Document

CENTRAL PALM BEACH PHYSICIANS AND -VS- GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Aug 13, 2024 |WAYNE CULVER |19P - PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION |2024SC006624

Document

ETHAN SLOAN -VS- AMERICAN FAMILY CONNECT PROPERTY

Aug 15, 2024 |SUSAN STACY |08 - AUTO NEGLIGENCE |2024CA001581