Bank Of America N A Vs The Unknown Spouse Of Sue Ann Et Al

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 19, 2024 line 1. DEFENDANT RONAN LYALL, ANGELA LYALL MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION is GRANTED in-part and DENIED in-part. The Court notes that both parties failed to comply with the rules and requirements regarding the contents of the separate statement. Plaintiff inserted purported evidentiary objections to facts into the separate statement; defendants failed to list all the supporting evidence as to each fact. For example, Fact 76 is objected to by the Plaintiff (instead of properly objecting to evidence cited) and Defendant listed only paragraph 5 of the Lyall declaration as supporting evidence while reciting information contained in paragraph 4 of Lyall declaration. These inclusions and omission defeat the purpose of providing a separate statement rendering the separate statement unusable for the intended purpose. 1.Defendants' Motion for Summary Adjudication on the First and Third causes of action is granted. Plaintiff cannot support claims for declaratory relief or quiet title because the agreed-boundary doctrine does not apply in the present case. 2.Defendants' Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the Second Cause of Action is treated as a Judgment on the Pleadings. The Court grants this motion. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend their complaint to allege adverse possession by the prior owners. 3.Defendants' Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the Fourth Cause of Action is granted. Plaintiff did not dispute SSUF 69 admitting that they cannot provide any evidence of hostility. SSUF 69 states, "Plaintiff cannot produce evidence that she openly and hostilely took possession of the disputed area or of a particular use to which she is entitled by such possession." 4.Defendants' Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the Fifth Cause of Action is DENIED. Triable issue of fact exists regarding the existence of the fence. See Lyall Declaration paragraphs 4 and 6 ("There was an old fence that run parallel to our back deck and extended part of the way to the back boundary of our property…." ") and Fact 76. "Before offering to purchase 51 Aloha and during escrow defendant Ronan Lyall inspected the area on the southeast side of the home, where there was no fence or other boundary markers separating his home from the home located at 45 Aloha. The side yard area in question was not developed in any form, was not planted or landscaped, had no fence or visible demarcation dividing the land between the two properties and had various debris scattered across the hillside." =(501/CFH) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified and the opposing party does not appear.

Case Number: 22STCV33658 Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 Dept: 68 Dept. 68 Date: 7-16-24 Case #: 22STCV33658 Trial Date: 1-9-25 c/f 6-24-24 FURTHER INTERROGATORIES MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Samuel Welch RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Noah Penn-El RELIEF REQUESTED Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (set one) SUMMARY OF ACTION Plaintiffs were tenants of a single family dwelling at 32270 Saticoy Street, West Hills, and allege unsanitary and/or unsafe conditions on the premises as a result of improper maintenance and upkeep. On October 17, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for Failure to Provide Habitable Dwellings, Breach of Covenant of Right to Quiet Enjoyment and Possession of the Property, Nuisance, and Negligence. Defendants answered the complaint on February 23, 2023. On June 10, 2024, Derrick Robinson filed a Request for Dismissal from the complaint. RULING : Granted. Defendant, Samuel Welch moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories (set one), numbers 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, and 12.4, from Plaintiff Noah Penn-El. The responses consist of incomplete replies, or admission of certain unspecified documents or media. The responses are incomplete and fail to respond to all subcategories of the requests. The references to other persons constitutes an improper, factually incomplete answer. ( Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783784 [Answers must be complete and responsive. Thus, it is not proper to answer by stating, See my deposition, See my pleading, or See the financial statement].) The motion is therefore granted. Responding is ordered to serve responses in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.210-20310240. No sanctions requested. The court calendar shows one remaining, scheduled motion to compel further responses through July 22, 2024. The motions appear as a continuation of discovery issues addressed by the court in the 23 motions to compel responses granted on November 22, 2023. The court does not conduct any informal discovery conferences. While the court understands the prior use and perhaps reliance on the IDC system, the court finds the number of items on the court calendar through the next three months presents a potentially inordinate burden. The court reserves the right to set an OSC re: Discovery Referee in lieu of a hearing on any given motion, and may take off any and all motions in lieu of the OSC hearing. The court invites the parties to continue meeting and conferring, including the provision of supplemental responses, when possible. The final motion to compel further responses for this set of items addresses Shenikwa Malone on July 22, 2024. Defendant to give notice. Dept. 68 Date: 7-16-24 Case #: 22STCV33658 Trial Date: 1-9-25 c/f 6-24-24 FURTHER INTERROGATORIES MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Samuel Welch RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Iyana Jackson RELIEF REQUESTED Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (set one) SUMMARY OF ACTION Plaintiffs were tenants of a single family dwelling at 32270 Saticoy Street, West Hills, and allege unsanitary and/or unsafe conditions on the premises as a result of improper maintenance and upkeep. On October 17, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for Failure to Provide Habitable Dwellings, Breach of Covenant of Right to Quiet Enjoyment and Possession of the Property, Nuisance, and Negligence. Defendants answered the complaint on February 23, 2023. On June 10, 2024, Derrick Robinson filed a Request for Dismissal from the complaint. RULING : Granted. Defendant, Samuel Welch moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories (set one), numbers 2.6, 6.4, 6.5, 6.7, 7.1, 7.2, 9.1, 9.2, and 12.4 from Plaintiff Iyana Jackson. The responses consist of incomplete replies, with assurances of later production upon entry into a protective order, or references to other parties and non-parties responsible for the provision of information. The responses are incomplete and fail to respond to all subcategories of the requests. The references to other persons constitutes an improper, factually incomplete answer. ( Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783784 [Answers must be complete and responsive. Thus, it is not proper to answer by stating, See my deposition, See my pleading, or See the financial statement].) The motion is therefore granted. Responding is ordered to serve responses in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.210-20310240. No sanctions requested. The court calendar shows nine remaining, scheduled motions to compel further responses through July 22, 2024. The motions appear as a continuation of discovery issues addressed by the court in the 23 motions to compel responses granted on November 22, 2023. The court does not conduct any informal discovery conferences. While the court understands the prior use and perhaps reliance on the IDC system, the court finds the number of items on the court calendar through the next three months presents a potentially inordinate burden. The court reserves the right to set an OSC re: Discovery Referee in lieu of a hearing on any given motion, and may take off any and all motions in lieu of the OSC hearing. The court invites the parties to continue meeting and conferring, including the provision of supplemental responses, when possible. Next set of motions to compel further responses begins with Noah Penn-El beginning on July 22, 2024. Defendant to give notice.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Complaint, Allegations, and Defendants’ Default Plaintiff DML Capital, Inc. contends it holds valid deeds of trust against properties on Cougar Lane in Running Springs and on State Highway 189 in Blue Jay. However, due to a mistake the deeds of trust were not properly recorded. The Blue Jay property is owned by the Riordans, John and Lisa (Lisa is also known as Lisa Griggs-Riordan). 1 The Running Springs property is owned by Lisa’s company, Veracity Marketing, LLC (Veracity), but there was a “vesting error” in the deed of trust as it identified Lisa as the owner. Therefore, the pending litigation was commenced on September 20, 2023, against the Riordans and Veracity. DML seeks declaratory relief or a determination that the liens are valid and enforceable. The complaint also contains causes of action for equitable lien and reformation. 1 Because the Riordans share the same last name, the Court will refer to them by their first name for the purpose of clarity. The Court means no disrespect. 3 The proofs of service of summons on file indicate Lisa was personally served at the Blue Jay address on October 11, 2023. John was substitute served at the same time and at the same address via Lisa. Defaults were entered against the Riordan’s on November 27, 2023. The Motion to Vacate John, but not Lisa, now moves to set aside the default on the grounds that service was defective and did not result in actual notice as the couple had separated in November 2021 and were living in different households, with John living at the Cougar Lane property and Lisa living at the Blue Jay property. Thus, John did not reside at the residence where substitute service was allegedly perfected. John also contends his mother learned of the lawsuit in mid-January 2024 and contacted DML’s attorney to resolve the lawsuit. Then, in March 2024, John received a solicitation letter from an attorney about the lawsuit. It is unclear if John had been informed about the lawsuit by his mother. In any event, John attended a hearing on March 20, 2024, and then retained counsel. The set aside motion followed on April 23, 2024. The motion also indicates that Lisa fraudulently pledged the properties as collateral during the time the parties were separated. The motion is supported by a declaration from John, the proof of service of summons, the request for entry of default, property history records, quit claim deeds, a proposed answer, and a proposed cross-complaint for fraud, indemnity, declaratory relief, and apportionment of fault against Lisa. The motion is opposed by DML, which essentially argues that it had attempted to obtain a default judgment, but it never came to fruition because the Court was improperly requiring a default prove-up hearing. Regardless, the judgment was never entered and the pending motion was filed. DML also argues that the motion is untimely because John’s mother admitted during the January 2024 phone call that her son was aware of the lawsuit yet John waited until April to file 4 his motion. Finally, DML refutes John’s suggestion that he was defrauded, but those arguments are beyond the scope of the pending motion. The opposition is supported by a declaration from attorney Charles Correia and various exhibits, which are irrelevant as they go towards DML’s prima facie case or refuting John’s assertions about Lisa’s alleged fraud. DISCUSSION The Law Related to Motions under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 473 The trial court has broad discretion to vacate a judgment and/or the preceding clerk’s entry of default so long as the moving party establishes the grounds for relief, the relief has been raised in a procedurally proper manner, and the motion is made within any applicable time limits. (Cruz v. Fagor America, Inc. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 488, 495.) Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), “[t]he court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party … from a judgment … or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” However, a motion for such relief must be made within a reasonable time, but in no case exceeding six months after the entry of the judgment, default, order, etc. The six-month limit is jurisdictional in nature. (Maynard v. Brandon (2005) 36 Cal.4th 364, 372.) In this case, John has presented a valid basis for why the default was taken against him— a reason that DML has not refuted. Namely, John did not live at the address were he was purportedly substitute served because he and Lisa separated and he did not live at the property at the time of service. This means service was defective because to perfect substitute service in the manner advanced by DML, the service documents must be left at the defendant’s “dwelling house” 5 and then mailed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20.) DML’s claimed service is therefore factually inaccurate and, in-turn, legally invalid. (See 10/25/24 Proof of service at ¶ 5b.) Although DML argues that John’s mother purportedly admitted that John knew about the lawsuit in January 2024, “[a]ctual notice of the action alone, however, is not a substitute for proper service and is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction.” (American Express Centurion Bank v. Zara (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 383, 392.) Furthermore, the assertion in the declaration from attorney Correia about what John’s mother told him about John’s knowledge of the lawsuit would logically be hearsay since it is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Finally, even assuming that John had notice of the lawsuit in January 2024, the three month delay in filing the motion is not necessarily unreasonable since it appears that settlement efforts were made and then John sought an attorney referral service in the interim. The motion was otherwise filed well within the outer six month limit imposed by section 473. Conclusion Based on the foregoing: The Court grants defendant John Riordan’s motion to set aside the default. Defendant John Riordan shall have thirty (30) days to file a responsive pleading to the complaint. The Court sets a trial setting conference for September 18, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. Counsel for defendant John Riordan is ordered to provide notice. 6

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 15, 2024 line 6. PLAINTIFF 655 POWELL I5, LP Motion To Enforce Settlement: Memorandum Of Points And Authorities is GRANTED. Judgment shall enter for $54,000 for the "balance owing" under the stipulation and for reasonable attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $2,250. Request for prejudgment interest and NSF fees is not supported by the terms of the settlement agreement or authority. No opposition filed. =(501/HEK) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified, and the opposing party does not appear.

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 15, 2024 line 3. PLAINTIFF JESSICA FONTENOT MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD is OFF CALENDAR. No proof of service re: Jessica Fontenot and insufficient notice re: other parties. =(501/HEK) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified, and the opposing party does not appear.

Case Number: 19TRCV00310 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: B CAROL JEAN THOMPSON, vs DELMER JAMES MCENTYRE, et al. Case No. 19TRCV00310 Before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant Delmer James McEntyre. This action was filed on March 27, 2019 by Plaintiff Carol Jean Thompson alleging claims identified as "derivative Complaint for Partition and Declaratory Relief. The complaint was quickly superseded by the First Amended Derivative Complaint for Declaratory Relief filed June 4, 2019. That is the operative pleading for purposes of this Motion. (Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the operative complaint. That request is unnecessary. The operative complaint in the action is inherently before the Court for purposes of a motion for summary judgment as it is the staring point for the analysis of the merits of the motion.) The Complaint alleged that there is the McEntyre Family Properties, LLC ("MFP, LLC"), whose members are Plaintiff, DefendantMary Elaine Tavares and Russell McEntyre. (Complaint 8.) MFP, LLC owns two pieces of real property. (Complaint 11, 12.) There is an operating agreement. (Complaint 10.) Plaintiff alleged that "13. Over the past several years, the ability of the MFP, LLC Members to cooperatively operate the MFP, LLC has deteriorated. This lack of cooperation increased since 2016. 14. MFP, LLC Members have been unable to work together to manage the properties owned by MFP, LLC. Defendant has been making unilateral decisions regarding the properties, in violation of the MFP, LLC agreement." (Complaint 13, 14.) The Complaint also alleges that in May 2018 Plaintiff had filed a prior civil action for partition to force the sale of the real property. ((Complaint 16.) Then in late 2018 Plaintiff caused there to be a vote of the members of MFP, LLC to direct the sell of the real property. (Complaint 17.) The vote passed by a 75-25% vote with 3 members in favor, Defendant opposed. (Complaint 19-20.) Plaintiff then alleged that: "22. As a result of the actions described herein, MFP, LLC has been damaged in an amount according to proof and will continue to be damaged if relief is not granted. This action is commenced on behalf of Plaintiff and for the benefit of MFP, LLC, pursuant to Corp. Code§ 800." (Complaint 22.) The First (and only) Cause of Action is titled "Declaratory Relief" and it incorporates the foregoing allegations. It states, in its entirety: "24. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and Defendants concerning their respective rights and duties in that Defendant, Delmer James McEntyre, protests a vote held between the MFP, LLC members as to three ballot items: (a) Amend the Operating Agreement to remove Section 18.08 which states each member waives a partition action; (b) Sell the 2905 Property and the 2909 Property; and (c) Dissolve MFP, LLC. 25. Plaintiff, Elaine, and Russell all voted "yes" on all three ballot items. As a result, the MFP, LLC majority would like to take action per the votes and amend the operating agreement, sell the MFP, LLC properties, and dissolve MFP, LLC. 26. Plaintiff desires a judicial determination of the validity and enforceability of the vote on all three ballot items. 27. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order for Plaintiff to enforce the votes, take action on the votes with certainty, and proceed for the benefit of MFP, LLC." In the Prayer Plaintiff asks for a declaration that the October 2018 vote was valid and enforceable, for an injunction, for damages that MFP, LLC suffered, costs and attorneys fees as well as interst. On October 24, 2023 this Court (Judge Hill) granted Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of a receiver for MFP, LLC..The Receiver's Status Conference Statement filed April 3, 2024 states: "On August 23, 2021 this Court made and entered its order ... appointing the Receiver ... for defendant McEntyre Family Properties LLC (the "LLC") and all of its assets. Pursuant to the ... Order Appointing Receiver, the Receiver took possession of the LLC's assets, including the LLC's real property located at 2509 & 2909 N. Sepulveda Boulevard, Manhattan Beach, California (the "Real Property"). As provided in ... the Order Appointing Receiver, the Receiver listed the Real Property for sale with a real estate broker. The Receiver accepted an offer to purchase the Real Property for $4,415,000. The Court, by order filed May 8, 2023, confirmed the sale of the Real Property. The sale closed on July 10, 2023 and resulted in the Receiver receiving net proceeds of $4,176,904.74. Now that the Real Property has been sold, the Receiver's administration of the assets of the LLC is largely complete. The parties to this action are the members of the LLC and the Receiver desires promptly to distribute the funds he is holding to the members entitled thereto and to windup the receivership. However, the Receiver is aware that certain of the parties to this action have or may assert claims against the LLC." (Report pg. 1:21-2:6.) Defendant seeks summary judgment on the basis that the dispute alleged in the First Amended Complaint is now moot. The properties have been sold. The LLC is being controlled by the receiver who is winding it up. In a nutshell, Plaintiff opposes the Motion by noting that the action is a derivative action and she still claims damages on behalf of MFP, LLC. (See FAC 22 "As a result of the actions described herein, MFP, LLC has been damaged in an amount according to proof and will continue to be damaged if relief is not granted", Prayer 3.) It appears that both parties are correct. The single cause of action for declaratory relief appears to be moot, and Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on that claim. There is no need for the Court to declare anything any longer. However, Plaintiff's FAC vaguely references damages and prays for damages. However, complicating that claim for damages for the LLC is the fact that the Court appointed a receiver to take control of all the assets of the LLC. It appears that the receiver, not Plaintiff, is entitled to assert claims on behalf of MFP, LLC. However this issue has not been briefed or otherwise addressed in the papers by both sides. The Court requests that the parties address at the hearing the issue of the claim for damages for the LLC that appears to be asserted in the FAC. What is the nature of the damages asserted? No meaningful allegation is contained in the FAC. Since the claim is derivative, and hence is asserted for MFP, LLC, who is entitled to assert that claim given the Order appointing the receiver? Should the Court grant Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint requiring that a pleading with specificity identifying each and every claimed type of damages be asserted. A mere statement of having suffered damages would not suffice.

RG17874853: Tinsley VS Glaude 07/18/2024 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Deutsche Bank in Department 25 Tentative Ruling - 07/17/2024 Jenna Whitman The hearing on the motion for summary judgment scheduled for 07/18/2024 is continued to 09/05/2024 at 10:00 AM in Department 25 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.

Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for July 17, 2024 line 6. DEFENDANT PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE Defendant Phh Mortgage Corporation And Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee'S Notice Of Motion And Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support; Declaration is GRANTED without leave to amend. Based on Plaintiff's allegations in the complaint the foreclosure sale was scheduled for April 3, 2024 and Plaintiff's application for medication is dated April 10, 2024, i.e. 7 days after the foreclosure sale. The gravamen of Defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings (addressing solely the 2nd, 3rd and 5th causes of action) is the submission of the application after the foreclosure. Plaintiff's opposition does not address or even acknowledge this argument in any way. The Court notes that opposition devoted 7.5 pages out of 10 pages (starting at section IV) to causes of action that are not subject to this motion. Sections of the opposition addressing the relevant causes of action did not address the arguments raised in the moving papers. Plaintiff provided no suggestions on how the complaint may be amended to state the 2nd, 3rd and 5th causes of action. The Court further notes that Plaintiff failed to comply with SFRL 2.7B. =(501/CFH) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified, and the opposing party does not appear.