On 08/04/2015 ALEXANDER C BAKER filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against CLARA VESELIZA BAKER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Van Nuys Courthouse East located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are HUEY P. COTTON and RUPERT A. BYRDSONG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Van Nuys Courthouse East
Los Angeles, California
HUEY P. COTTON
RUPERT A. BYRDSONG
BAKER ALEXANDER C.
BAKER CLARA VESELIZA
BECK DEVAN D
Court documents are not available for this case.
at 08:33 am in Department NWU, Rupert A. Byrdsong, Presiding; Conference-Final Status (COURT TRIAL 3/19/18ESTIMATE: 1 DAY) - Held-Trial adv and vacRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service; Filed by Attorney-DefendantRead MoreRead Less
List of Exhibits; Filed by Attorney-DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Miscellaneous (STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO ADDRESS ); Filed by Attorney-DefendantRead MoreRead Less
List of Witnesses; Filed by Attorney-DefendantRead MoreRead Less
List of Witnesses; Filed by Plaintiff in Pro PerRead MoreRead Less
Declaration (AND REPORT OF FORENSIC DOCUMENT EXAMINER BETH CHRISMAN ); Filed by Plaintiff in Pro PerRead MoreRead Less
Declaration (RE EXPERT WITNESS DECLARATION ); Filed by Plaintiff in Pro PerRead MoreRead Less
at 08:32 am in Department NWU, Rupert A. Byrdsong, Presiding; Motion-Compel Responses (MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE ATDEPOSITION) - Off calendar-Moving partyRead MoreRead Less
Notice (VACATING THE HEARING AND WITHDRAWING THE MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION SET ON JANUARY 4, 2018 ); Filed by Plaintiff in Pro PerRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service (REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF COURT JUDGMENT (CIV-100); DECLARATION OF BETH CHRISMAN, FORENSIC DOCUMENT EXAMINER; EVIDENTIARY EXHIBITS A-E ); Filed by Plaintiff in Pro PerRead MoreRead Less
Request-Enter Judgment (COURT JUDGMENT REJECTED - 1) NO DEFAULT; 2) SECOND NOTICE: DOES NOT COMPLY WITH CRC 3.1800(A) - NO PROPOSED FORM OF JUDGMENT, NO BRIEF SUMMARY, NO 585(D) DECLAR. 3) CIV-100 FORM INCOMPLETE.); Filed by Attorney-PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service (NOTICE OF: TRIAL SETTING / CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE / OSC RE: DISMISSAL ); Filed by Plaintiff in Pro PerRead MoreRead Less
Request-Enter Default (DEFAULT REJECTED - SECOND NOTICE: THE PROOF OF SERVICE IS DEFECTIVE. THE POS-010 FORM IS A MANDATORY JUDICIAL COUNCIL FORM. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SUBSTITUTE ANY OTHER FORM FOR A MANDATORY FORM.); Filed by Plaintiff in Pro PerRead MoreRead Less
Request-Enter Default (DEFAULT REJECTED - AS TO CLARA VESELIZA BAKER - DEFECTIVE PROOF OF SERVICE - THE POS-020 FORM IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE POS-010 IS THE REQUIRED JUDICIAL COUNCIL FORM FOR MANDATORY USE); Filed by Plaintiff in Pro PerRead MoreRead Less
Request-Enter Judgment (CLERK'S JUDGMENT REJECTED - 1) NO DEFAULT. 2) DOES NOT CONFORM TO CRC 3.1800(A). 3) AN ACTION FOR FRAUD/DECEIT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLERK'S JUDGMENT. RESUBMIT AS A COURT JUDGMENT. 4) CIV-100 DEFECT.); Filed by Plaintiff in Pro PerRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Personal Service (PP); Filed by Plaintiff in Pro PerRead MoreRead Less
Summons Issued; Filed by Plaintiff in Pro PerRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Plaintiff in Pro PerRead MoreRead Less
Notice-Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: LC103241 Hearing Date: July 14, 2020 Dept: 1
#1 – Alexander Collin Baker v. Clara Veseliza Baker (LC103241)
On June 7, 2018, Judge Gregory J. Weingart formally declared Alexander Baker a vexatious litigant in Los Angeles Superior Court case LD068701 Baker v. Baker. Under that order, Mr. Baker became subject to a CCP § 391.7 prefiling requirement that requires him to get the permission of the presiding judge to file new litigation.
On August 4, 2015, Mr. Baker sued Clara Veseliza Baker for fraud, intentional misrepresentation, and concealment. The Second Amended Complaint, filed April 19, 2017, asserted three causes of action for concealment against Clara Baker related to an HSBC credit card, a Capital One credit card, and an ASCAP account for “Tarzana Jane.” On October 30, 2018, the court consolidated LC103241 with BC706242 Baker v. Baker.
On July 19, 2019, Mr. Baker, in propria persona, filed the first-filed Third Amended Complaint in LC103241. On October 4, 2019, Mr. Baker appeared ex parte in Department 1 seeking a retroactive prefiling order for the July 19, 2019 filing. Department 1 denied the ex parte application and Department T dismissed the first-filed Third Amended Complaint as a nullity.
On October 31, 2019, attorney Marc E. Angelucci appeared in LC103241 on behalf of Plaintiff Alexander Baker. On November 25, 2019, Judge Watkins granted a motion for leave to file a new Third Amended Complaint and Mr. Angelucci filed the subsequent Third Amended Complaint on behalf of Mr. Baker on December 2, 2019. On January 27, 2020, attorney Angelucci substituted out of the case and Plaintiff Alexander Baker once again became an unrepresented litigant. On March 2, 2020, Clara Baker filed a “Notice of Vexatious Litigant and Plaintiff Alexander Baker’s Maintaining of “New Litigation” in Violation of Prefiling Order Requirement” noting attorney Angelucci’s appearance was a sham and requesting dismissal pursuant to CCP § 391.7(c).
On March 20, 2020, Defendant Clara Veseliza Baker appeared ex parte in Department 1 requesting that the court dismiss the subsequently-filed December 2, 2019 Third Amended Complaint. Department 1 granted the ex parte application, finding “Mr. Angelucci served as a ‘mere puppet’ of Plaintiff Baker to avoid the effect of the prefiling order entered against Mr. Baker as well as Department 1’s October 4, 2019 order declining to retroactively permit the filing of Mr. Baker’s first [July 19, 2019] Third Amended Complaint filed in propria persona.”
On April 1, 2020 Mr. Baker filed, in propria persona, a Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Void Order. Defendant Clara Baker filed an opposition on June 25, 2020, which Defendants Michael Eames and Pen Music Group joined on June 30, 2020. Mr. Baker filed his reply on June 29, 2020.
The court notes Mr. Baker’s memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion exceeds the 15-page limit imposed by CRC 3.1113(d) (“Except in a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 15 pages.”).) Mr. Baker’s request to present oral testimony is DENIED. (CRC 3.1306(a).)
Mr. Baker moves the court to set aside its March 20, 2020 order as void pursuant to CCP § 473(d): “The court may, . . . on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.” (Mo. at 3-4.) First, Mr. Baker contends the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to dismiss the case. (Mo. at 4-6.) Generally, “[a]n order by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is void.” (Kyle v. Carmon (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 901, 909.) “Subject matter jurisdiction is the court's power to hear and resolve a particular dispute or cause of action.” (Donaldson v. National Marine, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 503, 512.) “The California Constitution confers broad subject matter jurisdiction on the superior court. [citation] The subject matter jurisdiction of the superior court is limited in certain circumstances, however, such as in areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction [citation], matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of an administrative agency [citation], and where jurisdiction is vested in a reviewing court as a result of the filing of a notice of appeal [citation].” (Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1014, 1029.) None of those circumstances are present here. Department 1 is the designated department for handling certain vexatious litigant matters in the Los Angeles Superior Court, (CCP §§ 391.7(e); 391.8(a)), and CCP § 391.7(c) permits the dismissal of an action. The court had subject matter jurisdiction to enter the March 20, 2020 order and it is not void. (Cruz v. Fagor America, Inc. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 488, 495–496 (“A trial court has no statutory power under section 473, subdivision (d) to set aside a judgment that is not void.”).)
In opposition, Defendants contend “Baker’s motion should be denied because he is essentially filing a motion for reconsideration without presenting any new facts or law.” (Opp. at 1.) Mr. Baker’s motion would be timely as a motion for reconsideration. (CCP § 1008(a).) In Reply, Mr. Baker argues he is not seeking reconsideration. (Reply at 5-7.)
However, Mr. Baker’s motion is, in part, substantively seeking reconsideration of the court’s March 20, 2020 order. Specifically, the court found Mr. Angelucci served as a mere puppet to avoid the consequences of the court’s October 4, 2019 order. In the instant motion, Mr. Baker provides new facts, in the form of his own declaration and the declaration of Mr. Angelucci, which were not before the court on March 20, 2020 and directly address the court’s finding. (CCP § 1008.) Specifically, Mr. Baker states he has “been working as a paralegal under supervision of attorney Marc E. Angelucci, researching and drafting papers, in my own case and in other cases, which papers attorney Marc Angelucci carefully reviews, making changes if necessary, before filing.” (Baker Decl. ¶ 7.) Mr. Angelucci denies serving as a “puppet attorney,” affirms his role as an officer of the court, confirms the paralegal relationship with Mr. Baker, and states he reviews Mr. Baker’s documents. (Angelucci Decl. ¶¶ 2-7, Ex. A.) Mr. Angelucci further states he substituted out of the case in January due to a medical emergency, (Id. ¶ 8), and expresses a willingness to represent Mr. Baker at trial if Mr. Baker is able to obtain sufficient funds to retain him for that purpose. (Id. ¶ 4.)
Accordingly, the court construes the motion as requesting reconsideration of the March 20, 2020 order. (Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 187, 193 (“a trial court is free to consider the motion regardless of its label.”); City and County of San Francisco v. Muller (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 600, 603 (“The nature of a motion is determined by the nature of the relief sought, not by the label attached to it.”).) The court finds the evidence sufficient to demonstrate attorney Mr. Angelucci is not a mere puppet of vexatious litigant Alexander Baker and dismissal on an ex parte basis pursuant to CCP § 391.7(c) is not warranted.
Plaintiff Baker’s Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Void Order is GRANTED as a motion for reconsideration. The court vacates the March 20, 2020 dismissal and the case is reinstated to the active calendar of Department T in the Van Nuys Courthouse with the December 2, 2019 Third Amended Complaint as the operative pleading.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases