On 08/21/2020 KAY filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against HOSTETLER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
JAMES E. BLANCARTE
SMITH NANCY K.
HOSTETLER KAY V.
ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT TITLE ESTATE OR LIEN AGAINST THE HEREIN AT-ISSUE PROPERTY
CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY INC.
ARCSTONE FINANCIAL INC.
ZEPEDA ANDREW WILLIAM
8/21/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
8/21/2020: Complaint - Complaint
8/21/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
8/21/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order
8/24/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint
Hearing08/25/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of ServiceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing02/18/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 02/18/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25Read MoreRead Less
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 08/25/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Kay V. Hostetler (Plaintiff); NANCY K. SMITH (Plaintiff); As to: Gary Manukyan (Defendant); LILIYA MANUKYAN (Defendant); ARCSTONE FINANCIAL, INC. (Defendant) et al.Read MoreRead Less
DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street CourthouseRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Kay V. Hostetler (Plaintiff); NANCY K. SMITH (Plaintiff); As to: Gary Manukyan (Defendant); LILIYA MANUKYAN (Defendant); ARCSTONE FINANCIAL, INC. (Defendant) et al.Read MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Kay V. Hostetler (Plaintiff); NANCY K. SMITH (Plaintiff); As to: Gary Manukyan (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: 20STLC07157 Hearing Date: May 25, 2021 Dept: 71
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
KAY V. HOSTETLER, et al.,
GARY MANUKYAN, et al.
Case No.: 20STLC07157
Hearing Date: May 25, 2021
Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for trial preference is granted.
Plaintiffs Kay v. Hostetler (“Hostetler”) and Nancy K. Smith (“Smith”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) moves for an order specially setting the instant action against Defendants Gary Manukyan (“Gary”), Liliya Manukyan (“Liliya”), Arcstone Financial, Inc. (“Arcstone”), and Chicago Title Company, Inc. (“CTC”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for trial pursuant to C.C.P. §36(a). Plaintiffs moves on the grounds that at 74 and 76 years old they are over the age of 70 and Smith’s health is such that preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing her interest in the litigation. (Notice of Motion, pg. ii.)
Plaintiffs filed the instant action on April 21, 2020 against Defendants for a single cause of action to quiet title based on a dispute between Plaintiffs and their neighbors Gary and Liliya (collective, “the Manukyans”) regarding the existence of a prescriptive easement on real property recently purchased by the Manukyans. On September 29, 2020, the Manukyans filed a cross-complaint against the prior owners of their property that is the subject of the instant action, as well the real estate firm and agent who represented the prior sellers for alleged failure to disclose the existence of the prescriptive easement. Plaintiffs filed an initial motion for trial preference on October 22, 2020, when the instant action was in Department 25. However, on November 19, 2020, the Court reclassified the instant matter from limited to unlimited jurisdiction, vacated all hearing dates for pending motions, and assigned the case to Department 71. Plaintiffs thereafter filed the instant motion on December 15, 2020, noticed for hearing on April 26, 2021. On April 26, 2021, the Court continued the hearing on the motion to May 25, 2021, and requested Plaintiffs file an affidavit of counsel pursuant to C.C.P. §35.5. On May 10, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the supplemental declaration. While Plaintiffs’ motion indicates they expect to file a motion to sever the cross-complaint prior to the hearing on the instant motion, no motion to sever has been filed or reserved. (Motion, pg. 1.)
C.C.P. §36(a) provides, as follows: “A party to a civil action who is over 70 years of age may petition the court for a preference, which the court shall grant if the court makes both of the following findings: (1) The party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole. (2) The health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party’s interest in the litigation.”
C.C.P. §36.5 provides that “An affidavit submitted in support of a motion for preference under [C.C.P. §36(a)] may be signed by the attorney for the party seeking preference based upon information and belief as to the medical diagnosis and prognosis of any party. The affidavit is not admissible for any purpose other than a motion for preference under [C.C.P. §36(a)].”
“The clear intent of the Legislature is to safeguard litigants who qualify under subdivision (a) of section 36 against the acknowledged risk that death or incapacity might deprive them of the opportunity to have their case effectively tried and to obtain the appropriate recovery. [Citation.]” (Swaithes v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1082, 1085.)
C.C.P. §36(e) provides, as follows: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court may in its discretion grant a motion for preference that is supported by a showing that satisfies the court that the interests of justice will be served by granting this preference.”
CRC Rule 3.1335(b) provides that a party’s request to specially set a case for trial “may be granted only upon an affirmative showing by the moving party of good cause based on a declaration served and filed with the motion…”
Plaintiffs have established they has a substantial interest in the action as a whole since the action seeks to address whether property they have owned since 1985 includes a prescriptive easement on a portion of the neighboring property.
Plaintiffs submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating that the health of Smith is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing her interest in the litigation. (C.C.P. §36(a)(2).) Plaintiffs submitted a declaration of their counsel Andrew W. Zepeda (“Zepeda”) pursuant to C.C.P. §36.5, in which Zepeda declared: (1) Plaintiffs are both over the age of 70; (2) based on information and belief, Smith has been suffering and continues to suffer from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (“COPD”), which Zepeda has observed affects her mobility and quality of life by interfering with her ease of breathing; (3) COPD is a progressive disease that causes irreversible damage to the lungs and which increases the risk of death from a variety of causes including respiratory infections and cardiac arrest; (4) due to Smith’s advanced age and health condition, preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing her in the action; and (5) Smith’s interest is identical to Hostetler’s interest in the litigation, and sot their interests are non-severable for purposes of trial. (Decl. of Zepeda ¶¶2-7.) Smith also submitted a declaration in which she declared (1) she was born on September 8, 1944, and is currently 76 years old, and Hostetler was born on June 29, 1946 and is currently 74 years old; (2) for the past three years she has been and continues to be under the medical supervision and regular treatment for COPD which affects her mobility and qualifies her as a handicapped person for purposes of handicapped parking; (3) COPD is a progressive disease which causes irreversible damage to the lungs and increases the risk of death from a variety of causes including respiratory infections and heart disease; and (4) she is concerned that with delays due to COVID-19, trial may be continued will into 2021 or 2022 and she is concerned about how capable she will be to appear as a witness if trial is set any later than Fall 2021. (Decl. of Smith ¶¶2-6.)
This evidence is sufficient. The Court finds that (1) The parties have a substantial interest in the action as a whole. (2) The health of Smith is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing her interest in the litigation. Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion is granted.
Dated: May _____, 2021
Hon. Monica Bachner
Judge of the Superior Court
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases