Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2021-00020659-CU-FR-CTL, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 03, 2023

08/04/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Fraud Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00020659-CU-FR-CTL BOBBIT VS SUSANA LOPEZ INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendants Susana Lopez, Inc. and Susana Lopez (aka Maria Zamudio)'s renewed motion to stay or dismiss action is DENIED.

This exact motion was previously brought by Defendants and was denied without prejudice. (ROA #126.) Defendants contend that new facts since this denial that have been uncovered through discovery warrant reconsideration of the issue and granting of the motion. The court disagrees. Although Defendants claim that 'new and different circumstances have come to light,' they failed to provide actual evidence of such new and different facts. Indeed, much of the supporting evidence relied on by Defendants is simply references to their prior filed motion papers.

Defendants allude in their points and authorities to evidence that Plaintiffs did not enter into any contracts with Defendants, received the property they did contract for with other parties, and obtained the construction permit referenced in the complaint; however, this is mere argument unsupported by evidence. Indeed, the only 'new' facts submitted were provided on reply and concern taxes paid by Plaintiff Monica Collins and construction permit issued in February 2019. But even if the court was willing to consider evidence provided on reply that should have been presented in the moving papers-which it is not-these 'new' facts do not subvert or alter the conclusions previously reached by the court when it first denied Defendants' motion. The 'new' facts do not address the issue identified by the court concerning the entity defendant, which Plaintiffs contend was the mechanism through which the individual defendant received allegedly fraudulent payments. The 'new' facts also do not substantially detract from the court's previous conclusion that most of the relevant witnesses are residents of and located in California.

In sum, Defendants have failed to show that any new or different circumstances warrant a grant of their motion. Accordingly, Defendants' motion is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2985179  11