On July 23, 2021 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Alvarez, Ana,
and
Does 1 Through 20 Inclusive,
Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
Mtc Financial Inc,
Ocean Point Townhouse Association,
Platinum Resolution Services, Inc.,
Trustee Corps,
for (26) Unlimited Other Real Property
in the District Court of San Mateo County.
Preview
Case Number: 21-CIV-03982
SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
400 County Center 1050 Mission Road
Redwood City, CA 94063 South San Francisco, CA 94080
www.sanmateocourt.org
Minute Order
ANA ALVAREZ vs. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al 21-CIV-03982
11/19/2021 9:00 AM
Motion re: Vexatious Litigant
Hearing Result: Held
Judicial Officer: Davis, III, Leland Location: Courtroom 2H
Courtroom Clerk: Allie Warren Courtroom Reporter: Stacy Gaskill
Parties Present
Exhibits
Minutes
Journals
- The department did not receive any correspondence from parties contesting the tentative ruling.
Case Events
- Matter is called at:; 9:06
- No appearance by any parties or their counsel of record.
- Tentative ruling adopted and becomes order:; The Motion of Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
("JPMCB") for Vexatious Litigant Determination is GRANTED. Plaintiff Ana Alvarez ("Plaintiff") is hereby
determined to be a vexatious litigant, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391(b)(2).
JPMCB's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. Further, the Court, on its own motion, takes judicial
notice of the Complaint and Minute Order dated November 5, 2021 (sustaining without leave to amend
JPMCB's Demurrer) that are part of the Court's records in this action.
Pursuant to section 391(b)(2), a "vexatious litigant" is defined as a person who "[a]fter a litigation has
been finally determined against the person, repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria
persona, either (i) the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to
whom the litigation was finally determined or (ii) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the
issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or
defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined." (Code of Civ. Proc. 391(b)(2).) The
Legislature's use of the adverb "repeatedly" under section 391 has been interpreted as "referring to a
past pattern or practice on the part of the litigant that carries the risk of repetition in the case at hand."
(Holcomb v. United States Bank Nat. Assn. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1504.)
Plaintiff has repeatedly attempted to relitigate her alleged wrongful foreclosure and other related claims
against JPMCB concerning the same property in five separate actions. (See JPMCB's Request for Judicial
Notice, Exhs. A-K.) In the first action filed by Plaintiff in federal court, Judgment was entered in favor of
JPMCB. (See JPMCB's Request for Judicial Notice, Exh. E.) Since then, Plaintiff has filed four additional
actions in this Court alleging the same or similar claims arising out of the same alleged wrongful
foreclosure. (See JPMCB's Request for Judicial Notice, Exhs. A, F-K; see also Complaint in this action.)
Judgment has been entered in three of these actions in favor of JPMCB. (See JPMCB's Request for
1
Case Number: 21-CIV-03982
Judicial Notice, Exhs. A, H, K.) Most recently, the Court sustained without leave to amend JPMCB's
Demurrer to Plaintiff's entire Complaint in this action. (See Minute Order dated November 5, 2021.) The
Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has repeatedly relitigated or attempted to relitigate her claims
against JPMCB after they have been finally determined. Plaintiff also has not opposed this Motion, and
therefore has not offered any argument as to why she should not be declared a vexatious litigant.
JPMCB's Motion for a Prefiling Order is also GRANTED. (See Code of Civ. Proc. 391.7.) Plaintiff is
PROHIBITED from filing any new litigation in the courts of this state in propria persona without first
obtaining leave of the presiding justice or presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to
be filed. "Disobedience of the order by a vexatious litigant may be punished as a contempt of court."
(Code of Civ. Proc. 391.7(a).)
The clerk of the court is to provide the Judicial Council with a copy of this prefiling order. (Code of Civ.
Proc. 391.7(f).)
JPMCB is to file and serve written notice of entry of order on Plaintiff.
Others
Comments:
Future Hearings and Vacated Hearings
Rescheduled: November 19, 2021 9:00 AM Motion re: Vexatious Litigant
Reason: Calendar Redistribution
Foiles, Robert D
Courtroom 2J
Rescheduled: November 19, 2021 9:00 AM Motion re: Vexatious Litigant
Reason: Calendar Redistribution
Traube, Lorna
Foiles, Robert D
Ortega, Alexandrina
Courtroom 2J
November 22, 2021 9:00 AM Case Management Conference
Courtroom P
Ouranitsas, Eresmia
Halperin, Ernst A.
2
Document Filed Date
November 19, 2021
Case Filing Date
July 23, 2021
Category
(26) Unlimited Other Real Property
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Case Number: 21-CIV-03982 SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY 400 County Center 1050 Mission Road Redwood City, CA 94063 South San Francisco, CA 94080 www.sanmateocourt.org Minute Order ANA ALVAREZ vs. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al 21-CIV-03982 11/19/2021 9:00 AM Motion re: Vexatious Litigant Hearing Result: Held Judicial Officer: Davis, III, Leland Location: Courtroom 2H Courtroom Clerk: Allie Warren Courtroom Reporter: Stacy Gaskill Parties Present Exhibits Minutes Journals - The department did not receive any correspondence from parties contesting the tentative ruling. Case Events - Matter is called at:; 9:06 - No appearance by any parties or their counsel of record. - Tentative ruling adopted and becomes order:; The Motion of Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("JPMCB") for Vexatious Litigant Determination is GRANTED. Plaintiff Ana Alvarez ("Plaintiff") is hereby determined to be a vexatious litigant, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391(b)(2). JPMCB's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. Further, the Court, on its own motion, takes judicial notice of the Complaint and Minute Order dated November 5, 2021 (sustaining without leave to amend JPMCB's Demurrer) that are part of the Court's records in this action. Pursuant to section 391(b)(2), a "vexatious litigant" is defined as a person who "[a]fter a litigation has been finally determined against the person, repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria persona, either (i) the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined or (ii) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined." (Code of Civ. Proc. 391(b)(2).) The Legislature's use of the adverb "repeatedly" under section 391 has been interpreted as "referring to a past pattern or practice on the part of the litigant that carries the risk of repetition in the case at hand." (Holcomb v. United States Bank Nat. Assn. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1504.) Plaintiff has repeatedly attempted to relitigate her alleged wrongful foreclosure and other related claims against JPMCB concerning the same property in five separate actions. (See JPMCB's Request for Judicial Notice, Exhs. A-K.) In the first action filed by Plaintiff in federal court, Judgment was entered in favor of JPMCB. (See JPMCB's Request for Judicial Notice, Exh. E.) Since then, Plaintiff has filed four additional actions in this Court alleging the same or similar claims arising out of the same alleged wrongful foreclosure. (See JPMCB's Request for Judicial Notice, Exhs. A, F-K; see also Complaint in this action.) Judgment has been entered in three of these actions in favor of JPMCB. (See JPMCB's Request for 1 Case Number: 21-CIV-03982 Judicial Notice, Exhs. A, H, K.) Most recently, the Court sustained without leave to amend JPMCB's Demurrer to Plaintiff's entire Complaint in this action. (See Minute Order dated November 5, 2021.) The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has repeatedly relitigated or attempted to relitigate her claims against JPMCB after they have been finally determined. Plaintiff also has not opposed this Motion, and therefore has not offered any argument as to why she should not be declared a vexatious litigant. JPMCB's Motion for a Prefiling Order is also GRANTED. (See Code of Civ. Proc. 391.7.) Plaintiff is PROHIBITED from filing any new litigation in the courts of this state in propria persona without first obtaining leave of the presiding justice or presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed. "Disobedience of the order by a vexatious litigant may be punished as a contempt of court." (Code of Civ. Proc. 391.7(a).) The clerk of the court is to provide the Judicial Council with a copy of this prefiling order. (Code of Civ. Proc. 391.7(f).) JPMCB is to file and serve written notice of entry of order on Plaintiff. Others Comments: Future Hearings and Vacated Hearings Rescheduled: November 19, 2021 9:00 AM Motion re: Vexatious Litigant Reason: Calendar Redistribution Foiles, Robert D Courtroom 2J Rescheduled: November 19, 2021 9:00 AM Motion re: Vexatious Litigant Reason: Calendar Redistribution Traube, Lorna Foiles, Robert D Ortega, Alexandrina Courtroom 2J November 22, 2021 9:00 AM Case Management Conference Courtroom P Ouranitsas, Eresmia Halperin, Ernst A. 2