RJI -RE: RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE July 12, 2018 (2024)

Case

Aug 01, 2024 |Real Property - Other (Non-Mortgage Foreclosure) |Real Property - Other (Non-Mortgage Foreclosure) |613590/2024

Case

The Bank Of New York v. David Russell Jr. A/K/A DAVID RUSSELL, Virginia F. Boone, The County Of Nassau, Tax Correction Agency Inc, Inc Village Of Lynbrook, New York State Department Of Taxation And Finance, John Doe #1-5 And, Jane Doe #1-5 Said Names Being Fictitious, It Being The Intention Of Plaintiff To Designate Any And All Occupants, Tenants, Persons Or Corporations, If Any, Having Or Claiming An Interest In Or Lien Upon The Premises Being Foreclosed Herein,

Jul 31, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |613456/2024

Case

Patricia Alexandrescu v. Glen Cove City Of

Aug 01, 2024 |Other Real Property - SCAR |Other Real Property - SCAR |ER24733947

Case

Dawn Miller, Heather Zoller v. Dennis Lionarons

Aug 01, 2024 |Real Property - Other (Ejectment) |Real Property - Other (Ejectment) |613497/2024

Case

Athene Annuity And Life Company v. 216 Woodbury Corp., Fahim Sadar, New York State Department Of Taxation And Finance, John Doe And Jane Doe, Said Names Being Fictitious, It Being The Intention Of Plaintiff To Designate Any And All Occupants Of Premises Being Foreclosed Herein

Jul 29, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Commercial |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Commercial |613289/2024

Case

Tapp Partners Llc v. Td Bank, N.A.

Jul 31, 2024 |Eileen C. Daly-Sapraicone |Special Proceedings - Other (Turnover Proceeding) |Special Proceedings - Other (Turnover Proceeding) |613532/2024

Case

Myles R Desner v. Jordan Desner, Nassau Financial Credit Union, John Doe

Jul 29, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |613293/2024

Case

Mortgage Assets Management, Llc, v. Cheryl Zwerlein A/K/A CHERYL ANN ZWERLEIN, Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, John Doe #1 Through John Doe #12 the last twelve names being fictitious and unknown to plaintiff, the persons or parties intended being the tenants, occupants, persons or corporations, if any, having or claiming an interest in or lien upon the premises described in the complaint,

Aug 01, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |613508/2024

Case

Bank Of America, N.A. v. Herbert A. Jenkins a/k/a Herbert Jenkins, Patricia A Jenkins a/k/a Patricia Jenkins, Maureen O'Connell The Nassau County Clerk, Lilco Employees Federal Credit Union, New York State Department Of Taxation And Finance, Dariius Jenkins, Julian Jenkins

Aug 01, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |009152/2014

Ruling

GARY PAUL O'CONNOR VS BOOSTZ INC ET AL

Aug 07, 2024 |BC629121

Case Number: BC629121 Hearing Date: August 7, 2024 Dept: 78 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 78 ¿ GARY PAUL O'CONNOR, Plaintiff(s), vs. BOOSTZ INC., et al., Defendant(s). Case No.: BC629121 Hearing Date: August 7, 2024 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO ADD PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Gary OConnor (OConnor) alleges that he is the trustee of a trust that is the owner of a 90.05 percent share in two parcels of real property in Los Angeles, the Compton Property and the East 1st Property. The complaint alleges generally that OConnor entered into a Purchase Agreement (Purchase Agreement) with the owners of the remaining 9.95 percent interest in both properties in September 2014: Greta Curtis (Curtis), Baypoint Mortgage, Inc. (Baypoint), Boostz, Inc. (Boostz), and Dr. Roots Herbs, LLC (Roots) (SAC ¶ 5), and later entered into various Amendments, none of which were executed, through the fault of defendants. (SAC ¶¶ 24.)¿Curtis corporate alter egos include Defendants Baypoint, Boostz, Roots, as well as Sisters, LLC.¿ (SAC ¶ 34.)¿ Curtis filed a Cross-Complaint on May 25, 2017, and an amended cross-complaint (FAXC) on July 26, 2017, alleging that OConnor breached his fiduciary duty to her by filing the instant lawsuit to enforce an allegedly void sales agreement, and by failing to account for or distribute rent to his co-tenants in the relevant property, including Curtis. (FAXC ¶¶ 4250.) II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY The only remaining defendant in the FAXC is Gary Paul OConnor. The FAXC does not indicate whether Curtis named Gary Paul OConnor in his individual capacity or in his capacity as trustee of the Money Market Retirement Trust or both. At the last conference on this case, Curtis indicated that she sued OConnor in both capacities. On September 29, 2023, Cross-Complainant Greta Curtis filed her motion to add Charles Hasbun (Hasbun), administrator of the Gary Paul OConnor Estate, as a Cross-Defendant. On November 29, 2023, the Court denied Curtiss first motion to add Charles Hasbun as a Cross-Defendant as administrator of OConnors estate on the grounds that Curtis had not filed a formal creditors claim against OConnors personal representative or successor in interest. On April 26, 2024, Curtis filed a second motion to substitute Hasbun as personal representative for OConnor. On July 1, 2024, Curtis motion to substitute Hasbun was denied. On July 1, 2024, Curtis filed a third motion to substitute Hasbun as personal representative for OConnor. III. LEGAL STANDARD CCP § 377.40 provides: Subject to Part 4 (commencing with Section 9000) of Division 7 of the Probate Code governing creditor claims, a cause of action against a decedent that survives may be asserted against the decedent's personal representative or, to the extent provided by statute, against the decedent's successor in interest. Further, CCP § 377.41 states: On motion, the court shall allow a pending action or proceeding against the decedent that does not abate to be continued against the decedent's personal representative or, to the extent provided by statute, against the decedent's successor in interest, except that the court may not permit an action or proceeding to be continued against the personal representative unless proof of compliance with Part 4 (commencing with Section 9000) of Division 7 of the Probate Code governing creditor claims is first made. An action may not be commenced against a decedent's personal representative on a cause of action against the decedent unless a claim is first filed as provided in this part and the claim is rejected in whole or in part.¿ (Prob. Code § 9351.)¿ Thus, in general, a claim may not be pled against a decedents estate, and a pending lawsuit against a decedent at time of death cannot be continued against the estate, unless the plaintiff has filed a claim creditor's claim in the probate proceedings. (Prob. Code § 9000 et seq.) The claims requirements in such cases are set forth in Probate Code Section 9370, which states:¿¿ (a) An action or proceeding pending against the decedent at the time of death may not be continued against the decedent's personal representative unless all of the following conditions are satisfied:¿¿ (1) A claim is first filed as provided in this part.¿¿ (2) The claim is rejected in whole or in part.¿¿ (3) Within three months after the notice of rejection is given, the plaintiff applies to the court in which the action or proceeding is pending for an order to substitute the personal representative in the action or proceeding. This paragraph applies only if the notice of rejection contains a statement that the plaintiff has three months within which to apply for an order for substitution. (b) No recovery shall be allowed in the action against property in the decedents estate unless proof is made of compliance with this section. IV. DISCUSSION Previously, the motion was denied on the grounds that there is no evidence that Curtis made a formal creditors claim and the claim was rejected as required under Prob. Code, section 9370. (Min. Order, July 1, 2024.) On this third motion seeking to substitute Hasbun as a personal representative for OConnor, Curtis provides a copy of her creditors claim against the Estate of OConnor, filed on August 9, 2023. (Curtis Decl. ¶ 6; Exh. 3.) Curtis declares that she did not find either an acceptance or rejection of her claim, and provides a copy of the docket for the probate case concerning OConnors estate. (Curtis Decl. ¶¶ 5-7; Exh. 2.) If within 30 days after a claim is filed the personal representative or the court or judge has refused or neglected to act on the claim, the refusal or neglect may, at the option of the creditor, be deemed equivalent to giving a notice of rejection on the 30th day. (Prob. Code §9256.) Thus, Curtis creditors claim was deemed rejected as of November 9, 2023. The motion was served on Hasbun and on Robert Brown, Counsel for the Administrator of OConnors Estate by mail. No parties oppose the motion. Curtis has satisfied the requirement of Probate Code § 9370. V. CONCLUSION Curtis motion for an Order substituting Charles Hasbun, as administrator of the Gary Paul OConnor Estate, as a Cross-Defendant for decedent Gary Paul OConnor is GRANTED. IT IS ORDERED Charles Hasbun be substituted as a party Cross-Defendant in place of Gary Paul OConnor, now deceased. Curtis is ordered to serve Charles Hasbun, as personal representative of decedent Paul OConnor and Robert Brown as Counsel for the Administrator of OConnors Estate, with an amended complaint within twenty (20) days of this Order. Moving Party is ordered to give notice. DATED: August 6, 2024 __________________________ Hon. Michelle C. Kim¿ Judge of the Superior Court PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: " Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. " If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at SMCDEPT78@lacourt.org with the Subject line SUBMIT followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsels contact information, and the identity of the party submitting. " Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. " If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.

Ruling

GROVER HENRY COLIN NIX, IV, ET AL. VS JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, ET AL.

Aug 12, 2024 |22STCV33659

Case Number: 22STCV33659 Hearing Date: August 12, 2024 Dept: 78 Superior Court of California¿ County of Los Angeles¿ Department 78¿ ¿ GROVER HENRY COLIN NIX, IV, et al., Plaintiff(s), vs.¿ JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, et al., Defendant(s).¿ Case No.:¿ 22STCV33659 Hearing Date:¿ August 12, 2024 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Grover Henry Colin Nix IV, and Grover Henry Nix III, Trustee of Soames Lane Trust (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed their Second Amended Complaint (SAC) against defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank (Chase Bank), Wilmington Trust, N.A., Structured Asset Mortgage Investment II Trust 2007-AR7, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Company for allegations arising from a wrongful foreclosure of residential real property commonly known as 2651 Aberdeen Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90027. On July 12, 2024, Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II, Inc., erroneously sued as Structured Asset Mortgage Investment II Trust 2007-AR7, Inc., (SAMI) filed the instant motion to quash service of summons and service of the SAC for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs oppose the motion, and SAMI filed a reply. II. REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE Plaintiffs request the Court take judicial notice of the briefs (motion, separate statement, memorandum of points and authorities, declaration) filed in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23 STUD 04606. The request is granted only to the extent that the documents were filed, but not as to the truth of the statements contained therein. (Johnson & Johnson v. Sup. Ct. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 757, 768 [Judges cannot take judicial notice of hearsay statements asserted in court filings, but can take judicial notice of the existence of such documents.]; Williams v. Wraxall (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 120, 130 n. 7 [judges may take judicial notice of the existence of court documents, but cannot take judicial notice of the truth of hearsay statements in decisions or court files, including pleadings, affidavits, testimony, or statements of fact.].) SAMI submits 23 requests the Court take judicial notice of various instruments filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder and court documents are granted. (Cal. Evid. Code § 452(d),(h).) To the extent that SAMI requests judicial notice of the contents of motions filed in separate actions, the request is granted only to the extent that the documents exist for the same reasons as stated above regarding Plaintiffs requests. III. LEGAL STANDARD [C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. [Citation.] (Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444.)¿¿ When a defendant challenges the courts personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving the facts requisite to an effective service. (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.) The filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper. However, the presumption arises only if the proof of service complies with the applicable statutory requirements. (Floveyor Internat., Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 790.)¿ On a motion to quash service of summons, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that all jurisdictional criteria are met. [Citations.] The burden must be met by competent evidence in affidavits and authenticated documents; an unverified complaint may not be considered as supplying the necessary facts. [Citation.] (Brown v. Garcia (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1198, 1203.) IV. DISCUSSION SAMI argues that Structured Asset Mortgage Investment II Trust 2007-AR7, Inc. (SAMI Trust) is a non-existent entity, and that Plaintiffs served the agent for SAMI claiming that SAMI and SAMI Trust are one in the same. SAMI argues that it is not a named defendant to this action, and that it has no association or relationship with SAMI Trust. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that SAMI Trust is a corporation owned by Chase Bank. Plaintiff asserts that SAMI Trust is a common law trust that exists, because it conducted the foreclosure sale on Plaintiffs home and subsequently brought the unlawful detainer action against Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends Sami Trust can be located in numerous Chase Bank corporate SEC filings, from 2012 to the present, and that the motion to quash should be denied. In reply, SAMI argues Plaintiffs motion fails to provide any evidence to support proper service of process on SAMI Trust, or to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction. SAMI asserts that Plaintiffs arguments concerning Chases counsel is not valid, and that Plaintiffs have not provided any admissible evidence to rebut SAMIs contentions. Here, Plaintiffs filed on June 17, 2024 a proof of service reflecting that SAMI Trust was served on June 12, 2024 via personal service to Robin Hutt-Banks, was authorized to accept service for CT Corporation System, Agent for Service of Process at 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, DE 19801. (Proof of Service, June 17, 2024.) The Court agrees that Plaintiffs have not met their burden that service was proper. Plaintiffs request for judicial notice of various documents related to the unlawful detainer action does not demonstrate that CT Corporation System was authorized to accept service on behalf of SAMI Trust. (Sheard v. Superior Court (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 207, 211 [[W]here a defendant properly moves to quash service of summons the burden is on the plaintiff to prove facts requisite to the effective service.].)¿¿¿ V. CONCLUSION SAMIs motion to quash service of summons is GRANTED. Moving Party is ordered to give notice. DATED: August 9, 2024 __________________________ Hon. Michelle C. Kim Judge of the Superior Court PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: " Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. " If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at SMCDEPT78@lacourt.org with the Subject line SUBMIT followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsels contact information, and the identity of the party submitting. " Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. " If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.

Ruling

EAST WEST BANK VS VALENTINA PAPAZIAN, ET AL.

Aug 12, 2024 |24STCV09146

Case Number: 24STCV09146 Hearing Date: August 12, 2024 Dept: 17 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles DEPARTMENT 17 TENTATIVE RULING EAST WEST BANK vs. VALENTINA PAPAZIAN, et al. Case No.: 24STCV09146 Hearing Date: August 12, 2024 Plaintiffs motion to have its RFAs deemed admitted as to Defendant Valentina Papazian is GRANTED. On 4/11/2024, Plaintiff East West Bank (Plaintiff) filed suit against Valentina Papazian, Takuhi Papazian, Arshavir Khachikian, Gevork Papazian, and Hagop Papazian (collectively, Defendants) filed a complaint for unlawful detainer. On 7/12/2024, Plaintiff moved for an order that its Requests for Admission (RFAs) (Set One) served on Defendant Valentina Papazian (Defendant) be deemed admitted. The motion is unopposed. Discussion Plaintiff served Defendant with RFAs on 6/14/2024. To date, no responses have been received. Defendant failed to oppose this motion, and thus has not set forth any substantial justification for this failure. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs motion to have its RFAs deemed admitted as to Defendant Valentina Papazian is granted. It is so ordered. Dated: August , 2024 Hon. Jon R. Takasugi Judge of the Superior Court Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If a party submits on the tentative, the partys email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.

Ruling

Aug 07, 2024 |CVPS2202192

FIRST CITIZENS BANK &Motion for Summary Judgment or in theTRUST COMPANY,Alternative Summary Adjudication on 2ndSUCCESSOR BY MERGER TOCVPS2202192 Amended Complaint By Defendants FrankCIT BANK, N.A. F/K/A ONEWESTEder, 70 Royal Saint Georges, LLC, andBANK, FSB vs EDER, ANEiger Companies, LLCINDIVIDUALTentative Ruling: On its own motion, the Court finds good cause to continue the hearing in thismatter to August 8, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. No further briefing, evidence, or objections may be filed.

Ruling

RUSSELL M FRANDSEN, ET AL. VS ALEX FOXMAN, ET AL.

Aug 08, 2024 |24VECV00579

Case Number: 24VECV00579 Hearing Date: August 8, 2024 Dept: T 24VECV00579 Frandsen v Foxman Ex parte application to advance hearing on motion for judgment on the pleadings: It is not the courts policy to advance hearings on unfiled motions. As of now, the motion is reserved only. When it is filed, the application can be made again. The court believes counsel were advised this in the past. If the motion is filed by the time of the ex parte application hearing, then grant motion to advance to 8/23/2024 at 8:30 a.m., opposition to be filed and served by email no later than 8/15/2024, reply by 8/20/2024. The court is engaged in a jury trial and the calendar is exceptionally busy as well as the court being dark on 8/19-20/2024.

Ruling

CITIZENS BANK, N.A. VS AMERICAN CITY BANK, ET AL.

Aug 08, 2024 |24STCV02397

Case Number: 24STCV02397 Hearing Date: August 8, 2024 Dept: 58 Judge Bruce Iwasaki Department 58 Hearing Date: August 8, 2024 Case Name: Citizens Bank, N.A. v. American City Bank, et al. Case No.: 24STCV02397 Motion: OSC Re: Default Judgment Moving Party: Plaintiff Citizens Bank, N.A. Responding Party: None as of August 7, 2024. No motion to set aside pending. Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against Defendants. if the complaint fails to state a cause of action, a default judgment is erroneous and will be set aside on appeal. (Molen v. Friedman (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1153-1154; Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 282.) Plaintiffs request for default judgment must therefore be denied. Background Plaintiff holds a Deed of Trust as to real property located at 1912 Las Flores Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90041 dated April 28, 2008, as Instrument No. 20080733829 (Plaintiffs DOT). Plaintiffs DOT is a second priority deed of trust against the property. Plaintiff filed this action seeking to cancel two other deeds of trust that were recorded prior to Plaintiffs DOT: (1) the deed of trust dated October 19, 1970 and recorded on October 21, 1970 held by Defendant American City Bank (Cloud DOT One); and (2) the deed of trust dated February 19, 1982 and recorded on February 26, 1982 held by Defendant Aetna Finance Corporation. On January 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint for (1) cancellation of instruments and (2) declaratory relief. Discussion Legal Standard Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a default judgment after a party has failed to timely respond or appear. A party seeking judgment on the default by the court must file a Request for Court Judgment and the following documents: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursem*nts; (5) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (7) exhibits as necessary; and (8) a request for attorneys fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800.) A defendant who defaults admits only facts well pleaded in the complaint. Thus, if the complaint fails to state a cause of action, a default judgment is erroneous and will be set aside on appeal. (Molen v. Friedman (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1153-1154; Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 282.) If the complaint fails to state a cause of action or the allegations do not support the demand for relief, the plaintiff is no more entitled to that relief by default judgment than if the defendant had expressly admitted all the allegations. Such a default judgment is erroneous, and will be reversed on appeal. (6 Witkin, Cal. Proc. (6th ed. 2021), PWT, §223).) Plaintiff fails to state a claim for cancellation of instrument Civil Code section 3412 states that a written instrument may be cancelled if there is a reasonable apprehension that if left outstanding it may cause serious injury to a person against whom it is void or voidable. To prevail on a claim to cancel an instrument, a plaintiff must prove (1) the instrument is void or voidable due to, for example, fraud; and (2) there is a reasonable apprehension of serious injury including pecuniary loss or the prejudicial alternation of one's position. (Thompson v. Ioane (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1180, 1193-1194.) Plaintiff fails to plead any basis to cancel Cloud One DOT or Cloud Two DOT. Defendants have therefore not admitted to any facts that would entitle Plaintiff to the cancellation of either DOT. Plaintiff fails to allege any facts entitling them to a declaratory order finding that it has priority over Cloud One DOT or Cloud Two DOT Plaintiff fails to allege a declaratory relief cause of action. To be entitled to declaratory relief the party need not establish a right to a favorable declaration. A complaint for declaratory relief is legally sufficient if its sets forth facts showing the existence of an actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the parties under a written instrument or with respect to property and requests that the rights and duties of the parties be adjudged by the court. (Lockheed Corp. v. Continental Ins. Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 187, 221.) The complaint is sufficient if it shows an actual controversy; it need not show that plaintiff is in the right. (Id. at 222.) Plaintiff fails to allege an actual controversy with Defendants. Plaintiff contends that its right, title and interest is first priority, paramount, and free and clear of all interest of Defendant and all other parties, as of April 28, 2008, and at all times thereafter. (Complaint, ¶15.) However, Plaintiff fails to allege that Defendants affirmatively dispute this position. Plaintiff alleges, Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the Defendants may dispute Plaintiffs contentions therein. (Complaint, ¶16.) Plaintiff has not alleged an actual controversy. Plaintiff has alleged a possible controversy. Plaintiffs Request for Default Judgment is denied for failure to state a cause of action against Defendants Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against Defendants. Plaintiffs request for default judgment must therefore be denied.

Ruling

Montezuma Lodge No. 172, I.O.O.F., of California, a California Public Benefit Corporation vs. Connie Jean Lewis, Trustee, Lewis Family Trust

Aug 05, 2024 |CU23-05966

CU23-05966Demurrer by Defendant CONNIE LEWIS, Trustee of the Lewis Family Trust, toComplaintTENTATIVE RULINGThe papers filed in support of this demurrer include a declaration by counsel as to meetand confer efforts preceding the filing. That declaration purported to attach as anexhibit a copy of the meet and confer letter counsel claimed to have mailed to opposingcounsel. But no letter was attached.More importantly, the request for judicial notice also claimed to be attaching copies ofthe two documents for which judicial notice was being requested. These documentswere to be a copy of a page of the Assessors Map Book, “showing the propertiesalleged to be at issue in this matter”; and a copy of a Google Map page showing certainaddresses. But again, no documents were attached.The request for judicial notice was intended to support the uncertainty basis for thisdemurrer to the entirety of the complaint, and thus the court cannot find the complaint isuncertain.The demurrer to the trespass, nuisance and negligence causes of action is alsooverruled. Page 2 of 4One of the elements of trespass is satisfied by a negligent act of the defendant causingentry onto the plaintiff’s property.The elements of trespass are: (1) the plaintiff's ownership or control of the property; (2)the defendant's intentional, reckless, or negligent entry onto the property; (3) lack ofpermission for the entry or acts in excess of permission; (4) harm; and (5) thedefendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm. (See CACI No. 2000.)Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Victory Consultants, Inc. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 245, 262.Likewise, an element of nuisance is met by negligent conduct causing interference withanother’s real property. Lussier v. San Lorenzo Valley Water Dist. (1988) 206Cal.App.3d 92, 102 [“a nuisance requires some sort of conduct, i.e. intentional andunreasonable, reckless, negligent, or ultrahazardous, that unreasonably interferes withanother's use and enjoyment of his property”].The complaint alleged that the Demurring Party “without approval by or permits from theCity of Dixon, personally directed an individual to pave the entire Parking Area byadding a layer of tar and gravel, (commonly called “blacktop”) [Complaint, ¶24]; that“The added layer did not maintain the previously existing grading but instead directssurface waters towards and onto the Oddfellow Property where it gathers and pools . . .[Complaint, ¶25], and causes damage [Complaint, ¶¶26-29].The court finds that the complaint gives the defendant “fair notice” of the nature, scopeand extent of the claims, by implying that the decision to pave the parking lot causedrainwater to be diverted from its historical path, to therefore pool in greater quantitiesnear the Oddfellow property. Edmon & Karnow (Weil & Brown), Civil Procedure BeforeTrial, §§6:128 and 6:129, p. 6-44.The court therefore overrules in its entirety the demurrer to complaint, and directs theDemurring Party to file and serve an answer within 30 days, to avoid the possibility ofdefault thereafter being entered.The parties are reminded to appear for the case management conference concurrentlyset for July 31 at 8:30 a.m., and the court will also conduct the OSC as to sanctions atthat time.PETITION OF ARTEFFECT XD, LLCCU24-04410Petition for Approval of Transfer of Structured Settlement Payment RightsTENTATIVE RULINGThe payee and counsel for the petitioning proposed transferee are to appear for hearingas scheduled. Zoom appearance is approved. Page 3 of 4

Ruling

JOELLE SAMSEL VS MARINA PACIFICA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,, ET AL.

Aug 13, 2024 |24LBCV00145

Case Number: 24LBCV00145 Hearing Date: August 13, 2024 Dept: S27 1. Background Facts Plaintiff, Joelle Samsel filed this action against Defendants, Marina Pacifica Homeowners Association, Summit Consultants, Inc., Todd D. Jones Construction, Inc. LN&N Construction, Inc., TRI Tower, Inc., Accent Metal Words Structural Preservation System, LLC for nuisance, trespass, and negligence arising out of water intrusion into her condominium unit. 2. Demurrer a. Legal Standard on Demurrer A demurrer is a pleading used to test the legal sufficiency of other pleadings. It raises issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing partys pleading. It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for purpose of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true, however improbable they may be. A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. Blank v. Kirwan 39 Cal.3d 311 (1985). No other extrinsic evidence can be considered (i.e., no speaking demurrers). A demurrer is brought under CCP § 430.10 [grounds], § 430.30 [as to any matter on its face or from which judicial notice may be taken], and § 430.50(a) [can be taken to the entire complaint or any cause of action within]. Specifically, a demurrer may be brought per CCP § 430.10(e) if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted. Per CCP §430.10(a) a demurrer may be brought where the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading. Furthermore, demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the complaint is so bad that the defendant cannot reasonably respond. CCP § 430.10(f). However, in construing the allegations, the court is to give effect to specific factual allegations that may modify or limit inconsistent general or conclusory allegations. Financial Corporation of America v. Wilburn, 189 Cal.App.3rd 764, 769 (1987). And, if the facts pled in the complaint are inconsistent with facts which are incorporated by reference from exhibits attached to the complaint, the facts in the incorporated exhibits control. Further, irrespective of the name or label given to a cause of action by the plaintiff, a general demurrer must be overruled if the facts as pled in the body of the complaint state some valid claim for relief. Special demurrers are not allowed in limited jurisdiction courts. (CCP § 92(c).) Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. Goodman v. Kennedy, 18 Cal.3d 335, 348 (1976). The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.) Finally, CCP section 430.41 requires that [b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (CCP §430.41(a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (CCP §430.41(a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (CCP §430.41(a)(3).) b. Meet and Confer Defense Counsel declares the parties met and conferred but were unable to resolve the issues presented by way of the demurrer. The Court notes that Plaintiff has not opposed the demurrer. The Court asks Plaintiff to meaningfully participate in meet and confer and, in the future, to either dismiss any claim she does not intend to support or oppose any pleading challenge. c. Analysis Defendant demurs to the second cause of action for trespass, contending water intrusion from a tropical storm does not constitute trespass. The Court agrees that the claim does not meet the elements of trespass set forth in Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Victory Consultants, Inc. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 245, 262, cited in Defendants moving papers. The demurrer is therefore sustained. In light of the lack of opposition, leave to amend is denied. 3. Case Management Conference and OSC The parties are reminded that there is a CMC and OSC re: failure to file proof of service on calendar concurrently with the hearing on the above demurrer. The Court asks Counsel to make arrangements to appear remotely at the CMC, OSC, and hearing on the demurrer.

Document

Maspeth Federal Savings And Loan Association v. Vito Ricciardi, Procarde, Inc., Asset Servicing Corp., Property Assessment Correction Group, New York State Department Of Taxation And Finance, John Doe 1 Through John Doe 10, The Names Of The Last 10 Defendants Being Fictitious, Intending To Designate Tenants Or Persons In Possession Or Persons Who May Have An Interest In The Mortgaged Premises, The True Names Of The Last 10 Defendans Being FICTITIOUS AND UNKNOWN TO PLAINTIFF

Jul 29, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |613283/2024

Document

Square Funding Cali Llc v. Capital One, N.A., Robin Stark

Jul 29, 2024 |Danielle M. Peterson |Special Proceedings - Other (Turnover Proceeding) |Special Proceedings - Other (Turnover Proceeding) |613341/2024

Document

Square Funding Cali Llc v. Capital One, N.A., Robin Stark

Jul 29, 2024 |Danielle M. Peterson |Special Proceedings - Other (Turnover Proceeding) |Special Proceedings - Other (Turnover Proceeding) |613341/2024

Document

Mortgage Assets Management, Llc, v. Cheryl Zwerlein A/K/A CHERYL ANN ZWERLEIN, Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, John Doe #1 Through John Doe #12 the last twelve names being fictitious and unknown to plaintiff, the persons or parties intended being the tenants, occupants, persons or corporations, if any, having or claiming an interest in or lien upon the premises described in the complaint,

Aug 01, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |613508/2024

Document

Square Funding Cali Llc v. Capital One, N.A., Robin Stark

Jul 29, 2024 |Danielle M. Peterson |Special Proceedings - Other (Turnover Proceeding) |Special Proceedings - Other (Turnover Proceeding) |613341/2024

Document

Dawn Miller, Heather Zoller v. Dennis Lionarons

Aug 01, 2024 |Real Property - Other (Ejectment) |Real Property - Other (Ejectment) |613497/2024

Document

Square Funding Cali Llc v. Capital One, N.A., Robin Stark

Jul 29, 2024 |Danielle M. Peterson |Special Proceedings - Other (Turnover Proceeding) |Special Proceedings - Other (Turnover Proceeding) |613341/2024

Document

Mortgage Assets Management, Llc, v. Cheryl Zwerlein A/K/A CHERYL ANN ZWERLEIN, Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, John Doe #1 Through John Doe #12 the last twelve names being fictitious and unknown to plaintiff, the persons or parties intended being the tenants, occupants, persons or corporations, if any, having or claiming an interest in or lien upon the premises described in the complaint,

Aug 01, 2024 |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |613508/2024