On April 30, 2019 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Whisler, Denise,
and
Bohart, Bonnie,
Bohart, Randy,
Herring, Michele,
Jp Morgan Chase Bank, Na,
Jpmorgan Chase Bank, Na,
Mabudian, Mohsen,
Redfin Corporation,
Wright, Finlay And Zak Llp,
Wright, Finley And Zak, Llp Attorneys At Law,
for Unlimited Civil Complaint - Real Property
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
V “Raga 'rJ.
AKERMAN LLP ‘
‘
l
‘
PARISA JASSIM (SBN 273915) 3m W,
Email: parisa.jassim@akerman.com
ALEJANDRO P. PACHECO (SBN 315136)
Email: alejandro.pacheco@akerman.com
601 West Fifth Street, Suite 300
Los Angeles, California 90071 r _ ‘
u
5V " " " "
Telephone: (213) 688-9500 t
Facsimile: (213) 627-6342
t
Attorneys for Defendant
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA fl
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO w
yin
mbUJNHOCOONON
DR. DENISE DEE WHISLER, Case No. CIVDSl91 3252
In Pro Per,
Hon. Winston Keh, Dept. S33
300 627—6342
90071 r—I»—I~H>—l>—I
SUITE Plaintiff, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.'S
LLP
(213)
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE
CALIFORNIA
FAX:
v. OF INTENT TO MAKE A MOTION TO
SET ASIDE AND VACATE DISMISSAL
STREET,
—
JUDGMENT AND JOINDER IN
AKERMAN
FIFTH 688—9500
WRIGHT, FINLEY AND ZAK, LLP, ET AL., DEFENDANTS WRIGHT, FINLEY AND
ANGELES,
and DOES 8 -
50, inclusive, ZAK, LLP'S RESPONSE TO THE SAME
WEST
r—Ir—I
(213) “a
Los [Filed with Declaration of Alejandro P.
601
TEL:
Defendants. Pacheco and Request for Judicial Notice]
Hearing Information:
Date: January 19, 2023
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept: S33
Complaint Filed: April 30, 2019
Lawsuit Dismissed: October 27, 2020
T0 THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS 0F RECORD:
OONQUI-PUJNi—‘OOOO
NNNNNNNNNHH
Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase) hereby opposes plaintiff Dr. Denise Dee
Whisler's "Notice ofMotion for: Intent t0 Make a Motion t0 Set Aside and Vacate Dismissal Judgment
and Replace with Default Judgments Against Defendants Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP and JPMorgan
1 CASE NO CIVDS191 3252
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.'S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL JUDGMENT
Chase Bank, N.A. Pursuant t0 CCP Section 663, 663A." Chase further joins in and adopts defendant
Wright, Finlay & Zak's (WFZ) response to plaintiff‘s notice of motion.
As an initial matter, Chase was not served with plaintiff‘s motion. (Declaration of Alejandro
Pacheco (Pacheco Decl.), 11 2.) Her motion also lacks merit.
This is plaintiffs seventh dispute with the court's October 27, 2020 dismissal order, in this
successful because she has not, and cannot, state any grounds
\OOONONUI¥UJN
action alone. None of her motions were
for relief.
Here, plaintiff seeks relief under Code 0f Civil Procedure 663. Section 663 permits a court to
set aside a judgment and to enter a "different judgment" where there is an "[i]ncorrect or erroneous
legal basis for the decision, not consistent with or not supported by the facts." Civ. Proc. Code § 663.
"[S]ecti0n 663 only empowers a trial court, on motion of a party entitled t0 a different judgment from
300
that which has been entered, to vacate its judgment and enter another and diflerentjudgment." Payne
627-6342
90071
SUITE
v. Rader, 167 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1575 (2008) (emphasis in original) (internal quotes and citations
(213)
LLP
STREET,
CALIFORNIA
FAX: omitted). "[A] section 663 motion does not lie to vacate a judgment following an erroneous ruling
—
0n a demurrer." Id. at 1574 (emphasis added). Rather, it "is designed to enable speedy rectification
AKERMAN
FIFTH 688-9500
ANGELES,
of a judgment rendered upon erroneous application ofthe law t0 facts which have been found by the
WEST
(213)
LOS court 0r jury 0r which are otherwise uncontroverted." Id. at 1574 (emphasis added).
601
TEL:
NNNNNNNNNt—Ifi—it—dflv—Iu—Ip—Iwwp—I
Plaintiffpoints t0 no incorrect legal 0r factual basis for dismissal, which was self—inflicted: On
OONONMJ>WNHO©OON©LJIAUJN~O
July 7, 2020, the court sustained Chase's demurrer to plaintiffs complaint, granting plaintiff 30 days
(until August 6, 2020) to amend her complaint. (Request for Judicial Notice (RJN), Ex. 1.) In lieu 0f
simply amending her complaint, plaintiff filed multiple unsuccessful motions. Chase filed an ex parte
application for involuntary dismissal on August 21, 2020. At the August 24, 2020 ex parte hearing,
the court ordered Chase's application be deemed a noticed motion to be heard on October 8, 2020,
instructing plaintiff the hearing would be vacated if an amended complaint was filed. (RJN, Ex. 2.)
Hearing on Chase's motion for involuntary dismissal was continued from October 8 to
October 16, 2020, giving plaintiff another week to amend. At the October 16, 2020 hearing, the court
granted plaintiff yet another ten days to amend, setting an October 27, 2020 dismissal hearing. (RJN,
2 CASE NO CIVDSI913252
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.'S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION T6 VACATE DISMISSAL JUDGMENT
Preview
V “Raga 'rJ. AKERMAN LLP ‘ ‘ l ‘ PARISA JASSIM (SBN 273915) 3m W, Email: parisa.jassim@akerman.com ALEJANDRO P. PACHECO (SBN 315136) Email: alejandro.pacheco@akerman.com 601 West Fifth Street, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90071 r _ ‘ u 5V " " " " Telephone: (213) 688-9500 t Facsimile: (213) 627-6342 t Attorneys for Defendant JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA fl COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO w yin mbUJNHOCOONON DR. DENISE DEE WHISLER, Case No. CIVDSl91 3252 In Pro Per, Hon. Winston Keh, Dept. S33 300 627—6342 90071 r—I»—I~H>—l>—I SUITE Plaintiff, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.'S LLP (213) OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE CALIFORNIA FAX: v. OF INTENT TO MAKE A MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND VACATE DISMISSAL STREET, — JUDGMENT AND JOINDER IN AKERMAN FIFTH 688—9500 WRIGHT, FINLEY AND ZAK, LLP, ET AL., DEFENDANTS WRIGHT, FINLEY AND ANGELES, and DOES 8 - 50, inclusive, ZAK, LLP'S RESPONSE TO THE SAME WEST r—Ir—I (213) “a Los [Filed with Declaration of Alejandro P. 601 TEL: Defendants. Pacheco and Request for Judicial Notice] Hearing Information: Date: January 19, 2023 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: S33 Complaint Filed: April 30, 2019 Lawsuit Dismissed: October 27, 2020 T0 THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS 0F RECORD: OONQUI-PUJNi—‘OOOO NNNNNNNNNHH Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase) hereby opposes plaintiff Dr. Denise Dee Whisler's "Notice ofMotion for: Intent t0 Make a Motion t0 Set Aside and Vacate Dismissal Judgment and Replace with Default Judgments Against Defendants Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP and JPMorgan 1 CASE NO CIVDS191 3252 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO VACATE DISMISSAL JUDGMENT Chase Bank, N.A. Pursuant t0 CCP Section 663, 663A." Chase further joins in and adopts defendant Wright, Finlay & Zak's (WFZ) response to plaintiff‘s notice of motion. As an initial matter, Chase was not served with plaintiff‘s motion. (Declaration of Alejandro Pacheco (Pacheco Decl.), 11 2.) Her motion also lacks merit. This is plaintiffs seventh dispute with the court's October 27, 2020 dismissal order, in this successful because she has not, and cannot, state any grounds \OOONONUI¥UJN action alone. None of her motions were for relief. Here, plaintiff seeks relief under Code 0f Civil Procedure 663. Section 663 permits a court to set aside a judgment and to enter a "different judgment" where there is an "[i]ncorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision, not consistent with or not supported by the facts." Civ. Proc. Code § 663. "[S]ecti0n 663 only empowers a trial court, on motion of a party entitled t0 a different judgment from 300 that which has been entered, to vacate its judgment and enter another and diflerentjudgment." Payne 627-6342 90071 SUITE v. Rader, 167 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1575 (2008) (emphasis in original) (internal quotes and citations (213) LLP STREET, CALIFORNIA FAX: omitted). "[A] section 663 motion does not lie to vacate a judgment following an erroneous ruling — 0n a demurrer." Id. at 1574 (emphasis added). Rather, it "is designed to enable speedy rectification AKERMAN FIFTH 688-9500 ANGELES, of a judgment rendered upon erroneous application ofthe law t0 facts which have been found by the WEST (213) LOS court 0r jury 0r which are otherwise uncontroverted." Id. at 1574 (emphasis added). 601 TEL: NNNNNNNNNt—Ifi—it—dflv—Iu—Ip—Iwwp—I Plaintiffpoints t0 no incorrect legal 0r factual basis for dismissal, which was self—inflicted: On OONONMJ>WNHO©OON©LJIAUJN~O July 7, 2020, the court sustained Chase's demurrer to plaintiffs complaint, granting plaintiff 30 days (until August 6, 2020) to amend her complaint. (Request for Judicial Notice (RJN), Ex. 1.) In lieu 0f simply amending her complaint, plaintiff filed multiple unsuccessful motions. Chase filed an ex parte application for involuntary dismissal on August 21, 2020. At the August 24, 2020 ex parte hearing, the court ordered Chase's application be deemed a noticed motion to be heard on October 8, 2020, instructing plaintiff the hearing would be vacated if an amended complaint was filed. (RJN, Ex. 2.) Hearing on Chase's motion for involuntary dismissal was continued from October 8 to October 16, 2020, giving plaintiff another week to amend. At the October 16, 2020 hearing, the court granted plaintiff yet another ten days to amend, setting an October 27, 2020 dismissal hearing. (RJN, 2 CASE NO CIVDSI913252 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION T6 VACATE DISMISSAL JUDGMENT