Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/09/2019 at 23:29:59 (UTC).

GARY MCKENZIE VS ANTHONY BUSTAMANTE ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/16/2015 GARY MCKENZIE filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against ANTHONY BUSTAMANTE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Compton Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are STEPHANIE M. BOWICK and MAURICE A. LEITER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1345

  • Filing Date:

    11/16/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Compton Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

STEPHANIE M. BOWICK

MAURICE A. LEITER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MCKENZIE GARY

Claimant

PEREDA RAMON

Defendants and Respondents

BUSTAMANTE ANTHONY

FUENTE SUSAN

MONTEREY MORTGAGE

PETROLLA AVENUE LLC

SERRANO HENRY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

TYM RONALD D. ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

MATHEWS NORMAN A.

MATHEWS NORMAN A

BELSHAW JAY S. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORI)ER (1) LIFTING STAY; AND (2) SCHEDULLNG TRIAL OR TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE; DECLARATION OF RONALD D. TYM. ESQ.

1/17/2018: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORI)ER (1) LIFTING STAY; AND (2) SCHEDULLNG TRIAL OR TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE; DECLARATION OF RONALD D. TYM. ESQ.

NOTICK OF TRIAL RELATED DATES; NOTICE OF ORDER TO APPEAR

3/9/2018: NOTICK OF TRIAL RELATED DATES; NOTICE OF ORDER TO APPEAR

Declaration

10/24/2018: Declaration

Certificate of Mailing for

11/29/2018: Certificate of Mailing for

Notice of Related Case

12/27/2018: Notice of Related Case

Minute Order

1/29/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

2/27/2019: Minute Order

Declaration

3/19/2019: Declaration

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT ANTHONY BUSTAMANTE TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF GARY MCKENZIE

1/5/2016: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT ANTHONY BUSTAMANTE TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF GARY MCKENZIE

DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT ANTHOY BUSTAMANTE TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF GARY MCKENZIE

1/5/2016: DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT ANTHOY BUSTAMANTE TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF GARY MCKENZIE

RULING

4/27/2016: RULING

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

5/3/2016: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

Minute Order

6/27/2016: Minute Order

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT ANTHONY BUSTAMANTE TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF GARY MCKENZIE

6/29/2016: ANSWER OF DEFENDANT ANTHONY BUSTAMANTE TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF GARY MCKENZIE

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

8/22/2016: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

AMENDED NOTICE OF FILING CIVIL JUDGMENT LIEN AGAINST JUDGMENT DEBTOR ANTHONY BUSTAMANTE A/K/A ANTHONY BUSTAMONTE

4/7/2017: AMENDED NOTICE OF FILING CIVIL JUDGMENT LIEN AGAINST JUDGMENT DEBTOR ANTHONY BUSTAMANTE A/K/A ANTHONY BUSTAMONTE

Minute Order

9/14/2017: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OF COUNSEL FOR JUDGMENT LIEN CLAIMANT

11/29/2017: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OF COUNSEL FOR JUDGMENT LIEN CLAIMANT

61 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/07/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 19; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 19; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • at 11:00 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Nunc Pro Tunc Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Sanctions Against Plaintiff's Counsel for Failure to Appear on February 27, 2019) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal f...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • Declaration (Re: OSC for Failure to Appear); Filed by Gary McKenzie (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by Gary McKenzie (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
138 More Docket Entries
  • 12/08/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2015
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2015
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2015
  • NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2015
  • Notice of Lis Pendens; Filed by Gary McKenzie (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2015
  • COMPLAINT FOR: (1) FRAUD; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Gary McKenzie (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2014
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC601345    Hearing Date: November 03, 2020    Dept: A

# 10. Gary McKenzie v. Anthony Bustamante, et al.

Case No.: BC601345

Matter on calendar for: Motion to Compel Disclosure of Settlement Terms

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

Plaintiff Gary McKenzie alleges that defendant Anthony Bustamante defrauded McKenzie of his interest in real and personal property. Bustamante allegedly induced McKenzie to convey title to the commercial real property at 1000–1008 and 1018–1022 South Petrolia Avenue, Compton, California 90221, by misrepresenting that he would pay $4 million with the proceeds of a $6 million settlement he was to receive from PepsiCo. Bustamante also misrepresented that he would pay the purchase price with loan proceeds, facilitated by defendant Susan Fuentes, dba Monterey Mortgage. Bustamante eventually conveyed the property to Petrolla Avenue, LLC. In addition to the real property, Bustamante also induced McKenzie to transfer title to personal property, including a Hummer and Mercedes, along with substantial amounts of cash.

The Complaint alleges causes of action for:

  1. Fraud;

  2. Elder financial abuse;

  3. Intentional interference with contractual relations; and

  4. Intentional interference with prospective economic relations.

    Prior to this action, McKenzie filed a quiet title action (TC027368). That case was dismissed on November 1, 2019 after a settlement was reached among Petrolla, Bustamante, and McKenzie.

    Fuentes now moves the Court for an order disclosing the terms of the settlement agreement. The motion is unopposed. At a hearing on August 6, 2020, the Court requested McKenzie and Petrolla to submit written statements as to their positions on the release of the settlement terms.

    McKenzie subsequently filed a statement agreeing to disclose the settlement agreement to Fuentes provided there is a protective order requiring that the settlement agreement is kept confidential and used only for this litigation. Petrolla did not file a statement. At a September 22, 2020 hearing the Court again continued the motion to enable the parties to contact Petrolla.

    For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.

  1. Analysis

Fuentes moves for disclosure of McKenzie and Petrolla’s settlement agreement, citing Mediplex of California, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 748, 753. Mediplex involved a settlor who filed an application for determination of good faith under Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6(b). The motion was opposed by the defendant. The settling defendant and plaintiff refused to divulge the terms of the settlement agreement, instead opting to provide the objecting defendant with “essential terms.” (Id. at 750.)

Mediplex involved a motion for determination of good faith, and it was within this context that the court determined the settlement details must be divulged. (Mediplex, supra, 34 Cal.App.4th at 753.) A determination of good faith is not before the Court, nor is there a post-judgment motion asking the Court to determine an offset.

The Court still does not have information as to whether Petrolla consents to disclosure.

  1. Ruling

    The motion for disclosure of the settlement agreement is denied without prejudice.

    Next dates:

    Notice:

Case Number: BC601345    Hearing Date: September 22, 2020    Dept: A

# 6. Gary McKenzie v. Anthony Bustamante, et al.

Case No.: BC601345

Matter on calendar for: Motion to Compel Disclosure of Settlement Terms

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

Plaintiff Gary McKenzie alleges that defendant Anthony Bustamante defrauded McKenzie of his interest in real and personal property. Bustamante allegedly induced McKenzie to convey title to the commercial real property at 1000–1008 and 1018–1022 South Petrolia Avenue, Compton, California 90221, by misrepresenting that he would pay $4 million with the proceeds of a $6 million settlement he was to receive from PepsiCo. Bustamante also misrepresented that he would pay the purchase price with loan proceeds, facilitated by defendant Susan Fuentes, dba Monterey Mortgage. Bustamante eventually conveyed the property to Petrolla Avenue, LLC. In addition to the real property, Bustamante also induced McKenzie to transfer title to personal property, including a Hummer and Mercedes, along with substantial amounts of cash.

The Complaint alleges causes of action for:

  1. Fraud;

  2. Elder financial abuse;

  3. Intentional interference with contractual relations; and

  4. Intentional interference with prospective economic relations.

    Prior to this action, McKenzie filed a quiet title action (TC027368). That case was dismissed on November 1, 2019 after a settlement was reached among Petrolla, Bustamante, and McKenzie.

    Fuentes now moves the Court for an order disclosing the terms of the settlement agreement. The motion is unopposed. At a hearing on August 6, 2020, the Court requested McKenzie and Petrolla to submit written statements as to their positions on the release of the settlement terms.

    McKenzie has filed a statement agreeing to disclose the settlement agreement to Fuentes provided there is a protective order requiring the settlement agreement is kept confidential and used only for this litigation. Petrolla has not filed a statement.

    For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.

  1. Analysis

Fuentes moves for disclosure of McKenzie and Petrolla’s settlement agreement, citing Mediplex of California, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 748, 753. Mediplex involved a settlor who filed an application for determination of good faith under Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6(b). The motion was opposed by the defendant. The settling defendant and plaintiff refused to divulge the terms of the settlement agreement, instead opting to provide the objecting defendant with “essential terms.” (Id. at 750.)

Mediplex involved a motion for determination of good faith, and it was within this context that the court determined the settlement details must be divulged. (Mediplex, supra, 34 Cal.App.4th at 753.) A determination of good faith is not before the Court, nor is there currently a post-judgment motion asking the Court to determine an offset. The Court does not have information as to whether Petrolla consents to disclosure. Absent authority showing such disclosure is required at this time, or that the settling parties do not oppose disclosure, the Court denies the motion.

  1. Ruling

    The motion for disclosure of the settlement agreement is denied without prejudice.

    Next dates:

    Notice:

Case Number: BC601345    Hearing Date: August 06, 2020    Dept: A

# 6. Gary McKenzie v. Anthony Bustamante, et al.

Case No.: BC601345

Matter on calendar for: Motion to Compel Disclosure of Settlement Terms

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

Plaintiff Gary McKenzie alleges that defendant Anthony Bustamante defrauded McKenzie of his interest in real and personal property. Bustamante allegedly induced McKenzie to convey title to the commercial real property at 1000–1008 and 1018–1022 South Petrolia Avenue, Compton, California 90221, by misrepresenting that he would pay $4 million with the proceeds of a $6 million settlement he was to receive from PepsiCo. Bustamante also misrepresented that he would pay the purchase price with loan proceeds, facilitated by defendant Susan Fuentes, dba Monterey Mortgage. Bustamante eventually conveyed the property to Petrolla Avenue, LLC. In addition to the real property, Bustamante also induced McKenzie to transfer title to personal property, including a Hummer and Mercedes, along with substantial amounts of cash.

The Complaint alleges causes of action for:

  1. Fraud;

  2. Elder financial abuse;

  3. Intentional interference with contractual relations; and

  4. Intentional interference with prospective economic relations.

    Prior to this action, McKenzie filed a quiet title action (TC027368). That case was dismissed on November 1, 2019 after a settlement was reached among Petrolla, Bustamante, and McKenzie.

    Fuentes now moves the Court for an order disclosing the terms of the settlement agreement. The motion is unopposed.

    For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.

  1. Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6(a)(1) allows for any party to an action involving joint tortfeasors “shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors . . . .” (C.C.P., § 877.6(a)(1).) A determination of good-faith bars other joint tortfeasors from any further claims against the settling tortfeasors for “equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” (C.C.P., § 877.6(b)(2).)

  1. Analysis

Fuentes moves for disclosure of McKenzie and Petrolla’s settlement agreement, citing Mediplex of California, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 748, 753. Mediplex involved a settlor who filed an application for determination of good faith under Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6(b). The motion was opposed by the defendant. The settling defendant and plaintiff refused to divulge the terms of the settlement agreement, instead opting to provide the objecting defendant with “essential terms.” (Id. at 750.)

Mediplex involved a motion for determination of good faith, and it was within this context that the court determined the settlement must be divulged. (Mediplex, supra, 34 Cal.App.4th at 753.) A determination of good faith is not before the Court, nor is there currently a post-judgment motion asking the Court to determine an offset. Absent authority showing such disclosure is required at this time, the Court denies the motion.

  1. Ruling

    The motion for disclosure of the settlement agreement is denied without prejudice.

    Next dates:

    Notice:

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer MATHEWS NORMAN A. LAW OFFICES OF