On 05/27/2014 FIREFIGHTERS FIRST CREDIT UNION filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against BRIAN CRUMPLER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are WILLIAM A. MACLAUGHLIN, GAIL FEUER and MEL RED RECANA. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Disposed - Dismissed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
WILLIAM A. MACLAUGHLIN
MEL RED RECANA
FIREFIGHTERS FIRST CREDIT UNION
KNAPP PETERSEN & CLARKE
KEEP ALFRED R. ESQ.
MILLER RICHARD T. ESQ.
6/12/2014: Other - - CIVIL DEPOSIT
12/5/2019: Motion re: - MOTION TO REOPEN FRAUD, ILLEGAL PERSUASION, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES/U.S. CODE US LAW
3/4/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REOPEN CASE FOLLOWING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
3/12/2020: Notice of Ruling
5/27/2014: COMPLAINT IN INTERPLEADER [CODE OF CIVIL PROC., SECTION 386, ET SEQ.]
5/30/2014: ORDER: TO INTERPLEAD FUNDS; 2) TO AWARD ATTORNEY?S FEES TO FIREFIGHTERS FIRST CREDIT UNION; AND 3) TO RELEASE FIREFIGHTERS FIRST CREDIT UNION FROM ACTION
6/12/2014: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
7/10/2014: Minute Order -
8/11/2014: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF FIREFIGHTER?S FLRST CREDIT UNION?S DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT BY BRIAN CRUMPLER
9/12/2014: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL -
1/14/2015: Minute Order -
1/16/2015: NOTICE OF RULING SUSTAINING DEMURRER
1/21/2015: Minute Order -
6/18/2015: Minute Order -
6/18/2015: JOINT TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST
6/23/2015: Minute Order -
9/17/2015: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL -
DocketRequest for Refund / Order; Filed by Brian Crumpler (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 78; Unknown Event Type - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 78; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 78; Hearing on Motion - Other (MOTION TO REOPEN FRAUD, ILLEGAL PERSUASION, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES/U.S. CODE US LAW, THRU ILLEGAL PERSUASION AND FRAUD/TAMPERED, WITHHELD LITIGATION DOCUMENTATION AND ASSETS, DENIAL OF BENEFICIARY RIGHTS AND ACCOUNTINF RE ASSESTS; GRAND THEFT;) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion - Other MOTION TO REOPEN FRAUD, ILLEGAL PER...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOther - (Ruling Re: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Huff's Motion to Reopen); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Hearing on Motion - Other MOTION TO REOPEN FRAUD, ILLEGAL PER...) of 03/12/2020); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Firefighters First Credit Union (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketOpposition ( TO MOTION TO REOPEN CASE FOLLOWING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE); Filed by Brian Crumpler (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Donna Huff (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketORDER: TO INTERPLEAD FUNDS; 2) TO AWARD ATTORNEYS FEES TO FIREFIGHTERS FIRST CREDIT UNION; AND 3) TO RELEASE FIREFIGHTERS FIRST CREDIT UNION FROM ACTIONRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder; Filed by Firefighters First Credit Union (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketEX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER: 1) TO INTERPLEAD FUNDS; 2) TO AWARD ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS TO FIREFIGHTERS FIRST CREDIT UNION IN THE SUM OF $6,840; 3) TO RELEASE FIREFIGHTERS FIRST CREDIT UNION FROM ACTION; AND ETCRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketEx-Parte Application; Filed by Firefighters First Credit Union (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute order entered: 2014-05-30 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT IN INTERPLEADER [CODE OF CIVIL PROC., SECTION 386, ET SEQ.]Read MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC546814 Hearing Date: March 12, 2020 Dept: 78
FIREFIGHTERS FIRST CREDIT UNION;
BRIAN CRUMPLER et al.;
And related Cross-Complaint
Case No.: BC546814
Hearing Date: March 12, 2020
[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:
Defendant/Cross-Complainant Donna huff’s motion to reopen fraud, illegal persuasion, breach of fiduciary duties/u.s. code us law, thru fraud/tampered, withheld litigation documentation and assets, denial of beneficiary rights and accounting re assets; grand theft; pc646; penalties pc132 offering evidence that is false; charges requested 31 u.s.c. 3717(E) & 321.16 – Theft of savings, etc.
Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Cross-Defendant Donna Huff’s Motion to Reopen is DENIED without prejudice.
This is an action originally filed in interpleader. The Complaint alleged that Firefighters First Credit Union (“FFCU”) had an account in the name of the deceased Lynda Alimena (“Alimena”). (Compl. ¶ 6.) Alimena’s husband, William Huff, pre-deceased Alimena, and upon her death, both Defendant Brian Crumpler (“Crumpler”) and Defendant Donna Huff (“Huff”) submitted conflicting claims to the funds in the account. (Compl. ¶ 13.) FFCU sought to deposit with the clerk the funds of Alimena’s account and for the Defendants to interplead and litigate their claims. (Compl. Judg. ¶¶ 3-4.) Crumpler filed a Cross-Complaint in Interpleader alleging that Alimena maintained a beneficiary account for Huff in the amount of $40,000 per William’s Huff’s wishes and sought to correct an error in the beneficiary designation. (XC1 ¶¶ 6, 12, 18.) Huff filed a Cross-Complaint in Interpleader alleging that William Huff left all credit union C.D.s and other accounts to Huff. (XC2 ¶ 6.)
FFCU filed the Complaint on May 27, 2014 in Interpleader.
On July 10, 2014, Crumpler filed a Cross-Complaint against FFCU, Huff, David Huff, and Roes 1-20, alleging five causes of action:
Establishment of a resulting or constructive trust
Reformation of beneficiary designation
Common count for money had and received
On August 5, 2014, Huff filed a Cross-Complaint against FFCU, Crumpler, David Huff, and Roes 1-20, alleging three causes of action:
Establishment of a resulting or constructive trust
Constructive trust of other assets
On January 14, 2015, the court (Dept. 45) sustained FFCU’s Demurrer without leave to amend. On February 13, 2015, FFCU was dismissed from the case.
On June 23, 2015, the parties agreed in open court to a settlement (Dept. 89). The amount of $381,517.72 held in trust by the Court together with interest accrued was to be divided equally between Huff and Crumpler, with one-half to each party.
On June 30, 2015, an Order was entered following the settlement conference ordering distribution of $190,758.86 to each Crumpler and Huff.
On September 16-17, 2015 both Crumper and Huff requested dismissal of their cross-complaints.
On December 5, 2019, Huff filed in the instant Motion.
On March 4, 2020, Crumpler filed an Opposition.
No Reply has been filed.
MOTION TO REOPEN
The instant Motion filed by Huff purportedly seeks to reopen the case five years after it has been dismissed. (Motion at p. 1.)
In Opposition, Crumpler argues that this case was settled on June 23, 2015 after half a day of “intensive negotiations,” and the case was then dismissed with prejudice. (Oppo. p. 2.) Crumpler contends that after this case was dismissed, Huff filed an action in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, for the “same claims and alleging essentially the same purported facts.” (Oppo. p. 2.) The Arizona case was disposed by a Motion for Summary Judgment granted against Huff: Huff has refused to pay the judgment ordered against her. (Oppo. p. 2.)
At the June 23, 2015 settlement conference, the parties agreed that the amount of $381,517.72 held in trust by the Los Angeles Superior Court, together with any interest, was to be distributed equally to the parties, with one-half to Huff and one-half to Crumpler (to be held by his attorney). (Oppo., Exh. A.)
The Motion references Penal Code sections 646 and 132, and 31 U.S.C. 3717(E) and 321.16. (Motion at p. 1.) However, none of these statutes authorize reopening a case. The Motion is largely unintelligible and it is unclear to the Court what relief is sought and under what grounds. The case may not be opened on the basis of the referenced statutes.
A litigant appearing in propria persona is generally held to the same rules and procedures as an attorney. The rules of civil procedure must apply equally to parties represented by counsel and those who forgo attorney representation; such a party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985; see Barton v. New United Motor Mfg. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1210.)
Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED
Dated: March 12, 2020
Hon. Robert S. Draper
Judge of the Superior Court
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases