Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/28/2016 at 13:17:53 (UTC).

EVELYN CHRISTINA RAMIREZ VS. JOSE CASTANEDA

Case Summary

On 01/06/2009 EVELYN CHRISTINA RAMIREZ filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against JOSE CASTANEDA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Glendale Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JOSEPH DE VANON. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2105

  • Filing Date:

    01/06/2009

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Glendale Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JOSEPH DE VANON

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

RAMIREZ EVELYN CHRISTINA

Defendants

CASTANEDA ALONSO MANUEL

CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE COMPANY

CASTANEDA JOSE

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK

Not Classified By Court

LEON OWENS

EDUARDO ROMERO

GREENBERG & BASS

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERVISOR MICHAEL D.

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL

JAMES BLUME

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

LISA MACCARLEY ATTORNEY AT LAW

Defendant Attorneys

COUNTS LAW FIRM

ADORNO YOSS ALVARADO & SMITH

CONWAY JACK K.

ALVARADOSMITH APC

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/08/2012
  • Notice of Ruling (ON MTN FOR FEES & OTHER MATTERS ) Filed by Joined Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2012
  • Order (ON PARTITION FEES AND COSTS ) Filed by Referee

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2012
  • Motion for an Order (TO PLACE JUDGE JOSEPH DEVANON UNDER OATH AND TO RESPOND TO ALL 35 INTERROGATORIES ) Filed by Defendant & Defendant in Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2012
  • Reply (BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REQUEST FEES AND COSTS ON BEHALF OF PARTITION REFEREE AND COUNSEL ) Filed by Referee

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/30/2011
  • Opposition Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2011
  • Notice of Motion (AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITH- STANDING THE VERDICT OF FEB. 22, 2010, VERDICT AGAINST THE LAW PURSUANT TO 371.143(7)h AND ATTY. MISCONDUCT PURSUANT TO 371.63(2)b AND CAL. RULES CT 3.1332(d)(1)-11) Filed by Defendant & Defendant in Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2011
  • Miscellaneous-Other (PARTITION REFEREE'S SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS RE ESCROW PROCEEDS ) Filed by Referee

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2011
  • Notice of Motion (AND MOTION REQUEST FEES AND COSTS ON BEHALF OF PARTITION REFEREE & COUNSEL; MPA; DECLARATION OF LEON J. OWENS & JAMES R. FELTON IN SUPPORT THEREOF ) Filed by Referee

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2011
  • Ex-Parte Application (Partition Referee Leon Owens ) Filed by Referee

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2011
  • Ex Parte Application - Denied (FOR ORDER EXPUNGING LIEN CREATED BY ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT ON PROPERTY AND PROHIBITING APPEAL TO PERMIT COURT ORDERED SALE ) Filed by Referee

    Read MoreRead Less
112 More Docket Entries
  • 05/26/2009
  • Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/26/2009
  • Declaration (OF J CASTANEDA ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2009
  • Answer to First Amended Complaint Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2009
  • Answer to First Amended Complaint Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2009
  • Proof-Service/Summons Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2009
  • Notice-Pending Action Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2009
  • Partial Dismissal(not entire case) (DEFENDANT ALONSO MANUEL CASTANEDA ONLY who has or will, join the action as a plaintiff ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2009
  • First Amended Complaint Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2009
  • Summons Issued Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2009
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: GC042105    Hearing Date: July 31, 2020    Dept: E

MOTION FOR ORDER FOR ESTATE PROPERTY RETURN TO PROBATE

Date: 7/31/20 (8:30 AM)

Case: Evelyn Christina Ramirez v. Jose Castaneda et al. (GC042105)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Jose Castaneda and James Blume’s Motion for a Probate Code §859 Order for Estate Property to Return to Probate, filed March 13, 2020, is DENIED.

This motion is filed by Jose Castaneda and is joined by James Blume U.S.M.C., both in propria persona.

On May 18, 2012, Jose Castaneda was declared a vexatious litigant in Castaneda v. Estate of Robert Berke, et al., LASC Case No. BC466737. On June 17, 2013, James Blume was declared a vexatious litigant in Blume v. Watt et al., LASC Case No. BC453664. Accordingly, under CCP § 391.7(a), Castaneda and Blume are prohibited from filing any new litigation in Los Angeles Superior Court in propria persona without obtaining leave from the presiding judge. Under CCP § 391.7(d), “litigation” includes any motion other than a discovery motion for any order in a Probate Code proceeding. The presiding judge, or another judge designated by the presiding judge, grants leave only if the litigation appears to have merit and is not being filed for the purpose of harassment or delay. (CCP § 391.7(b) & (e).)

The motion is largely incomprehensible, but Castaneda and Blume appear to seek an order under Probate Code §§ 850-859 for the return of property that was taken from the Estate of Luis Castaneda and the Estate of Felicitas Castaneda by “judicial constructive theft,” presumably from the sale of the subject property located on 1377 Rutan Way pursuant to the interlocutory judgment entered by Judge Joseph De Vanon on February 22, 2010, as well as another property located on 630 Mercedes Avenue. The motion also requests an accounting of the sale of these properties, the appointment of a judge to examine the account, the questioning of an attorney regarding specified matters, and an order preventing attorneys from selling any of the Estate’s property. Based on these requests, this motion is not a discovery motion. This motion constitutes new litigation under CCP § 391.7(d).

Based on the relief requested in the motion, this motion should have been filed in the probate department. Even if this civil department heard probate matters, Castaneda and Blume filed this motion without a prefiling order from Department 1, as required by CCP § 391.7(a). The Court notes that, in GP013952, In re: Estate of Felicitas Castaneda, Castaneda filed a VL-110 Request to File New Litigation by Vexatious Litigant, specifically concerning a motion with the exact title as the instant motion. Castaneda filed this proposed motion in GP013952 on July 8, 2019. On August 13, 2019, Department 1, designated by the presiding judge to determine whether to grant leave to vexatious litigants to file new litigation, denied the request to file the motion. Department 1 found that Castaneda failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the proposed motion had merit and was not being filed for purposes of harassment or delay. Department 1 also noted that, because the sale of the subject property located on 1377 Rutan Way was confirmed on November 9, 2011, the subject property is not an asset of the estate of Felicitas Castaneda. Accordingly, Castaneda and Blume are attempting to circumvent Department 1’s order denying leave to file the instant motion in the probate department by filing the motion in this action.

Because Jose Castaneda and James Blume are vexatious litigants and this motion under the Probate Code has not been filed with leave of Department 1, the motion is DENIED.

Relatedly, the Court notes that, on July 20, 2020, Casteneda with Blume filed in propria persona another motion in this action bearing the exact same title as the instant motion. This most recently filed motion is not a discovery motion and has been filed without a prefiling order from Department 1. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, hereby strikes the pleading, entitled “Notice of Motion and Motion for an §§859-859 Order for Estate Property to be Return & with Sanctions,” filed July 20, 2020, by “Jose Castaneda, Et Al Joiner with James Blume U.S.M.C.”

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where GREENBERG & BASS LLP is a litigant

Latest cases where OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL is a litigant

Latest cases where California Reconveyance Company Trustee is a litigant

Latest cases where JPMorgan Chase Bank NA is a litigant