- Online Services Pay Fines, Transcripts...
- Forms & Filing Forms, Fee Schedule...
- Self-Help Self-Rep, Info, FAQs...
- Divisions Civil, Criminal, Family...
- General Info Local Rules, ADA, Maps...
LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR
Wednesday, DECEMBER 4, 2013, 3:00 p.m.
Courtroom 16 -- Judge Elliot Lee Daum
3035 Cleveland Avenue, Suite 200, Santa Rosa
1. SCV-244006; Dawson v. Washington Mutual
Plaintiff’s motion is denied. The current action is brought only against Washington Mutual, Inc., an entity which has no relationship to the subject property or subject loan. Plaintiff’s motion fails to state any basis for seeking an order for injunctive relief against JP Morgan, the current owner of the $676,000.00 loan that Plaintiff and her husband Peter Brooks obtained from Washington Mutual Bank. JP Morgan is no longer a party to Plaintiff’s action. Plaintiff’s complaint is only against Washington Mutual, Inc., which itself has no relationship to the subject Loan or the Subject Property. Plaintiff’s Complaint is without merit and fails to constitute any viable claims affecting the title of the Subject Property. Thus, Plaintiff has no chance of prevailing on the merits of this lawsuit.
2. SCV-250521; Bodega Bay Concerned Citizens v. County of Sonoma
Per agreement, the matter is continued to January 29, 2014 at 3:00 p.m. in Department #16.
3. SCV-250616; Larch v. Director Dept of Motor Vehicles
This motion is dismissed on the grounds that the entire action was dismissed on August 16, 2013 and thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction. See Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App. 4th 429, 438; Casa De Valley View Owner’s Assn. v. Stevenson (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 1182, 1192.
4. SCV-252365; Newman v. JP Morgan
Here, Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint faces a fundamental legal obstacle—namely that the causes of action that have been repeatedly alleged by Plaintiffs—were re-alleged three separate times and have already been assessed and denied on their merits. It does not matter whether legal counsel neglected to file a paper, or failed to appear, if that failure was not casually connected to the Court’s entry of judgment.
Plaintiffs did not lose their day in court. The hearing date came and went on July 31, 2013 when the Court, referencing the similarities and deficiencies in each of Plaintiffs’ three separate versions of the complaint, found that Plaintiffs’ allegations lacked merit and could not overcome Defendants’ Demurrer and Motion to Strike. See Gulesserian Decl., ¶2 Exh. A.
When the Court made its July 31st ruling, it noted that Plaintiffs’ “assert the same seven causes of action against Defendants, but fail to offer any new allegations to support these claims, merely restating the same arguments as alleged in the original complaint and the first amended complaint.” Id.
A trial court has authority to dismiss a pleading that recites allegations that have already been considered and dismissed. Ricard v. Grobstein, Goldman, Stevenson, Siegel, LeVine & Mangel (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 157, 162 citing Code of Civ. Proc., §436; and see Lyons v. Wickhorst (1986) 42 Cal.3d 911, 915.
Finally, the declaration attached to the motion lacks credibility. According to the declaration, Plaintiffs were not aware, at all, about the July 31, 2013 hearings on the Demurrer and Motion to Strike. (See Gulesserian Decl., ¶3, Exh. B.) Specifically, per the declaration of counsel for Defendants, counsel left a message for Plaintiffs one week before the hearings (on July 24, 2013) and called Plaintiffs two days later (but was unable to leave a message. Id.) Therefore, doubts are raised as to Plaintiffs’ claim of complete ignorance of the July 31, 2013 hearings.
The court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate the Orders on the Demurrer and Motion to Strike, and Motion to Set Aside the Judgment re Dismissal. The grounds for this Order are that Plaintiffs’ Motion lacks credibility and fails to address the fact that the Court’s ruling was issued on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims and therefore, Plaintiffs’ claims have been litigated.
5. SCV-252744; Iniguez v. Vantium Capital
Plaintiffs’ prayer for attorney’s fees is stricken from the Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend. None of these equity-based actions seeking to set aside the foreclosure sale are based on contract.
Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages is stricken from the Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify under C.C.P. 170.6 is denied.
6. SCV-252816; Wheeler v. Chaney
The court grants Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Default and Default Judgment.