This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/30/2019 at 22:50:39 (UTC).

GRACE CARELLI VS. MERCEDES BOHBOT

Case Summary

On 09/19/2016 GRACE CARELLI filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against MERCEDES BOHBOT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6473

  • Filing Date:

    09/19/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Santa Monica Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

CARELLI GRACE

CARELLI GRAZNYA

MICHAEL AND MARION BERSTEIN REV. TRUST

BERNSTEIN MICHAEL

BERNSTEIN MARION

CARELLI GRACE AKA GRAZNYA CARELLI

Defendants

BOHBOT MERCEDES

DOES 1-20

ALESSI JUDITH

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

PHILIPS PAUL N.

PHILIPS PAUL N

Defendant Attorneys

PHAM TERI THUY

LALLAS TOM PETER

LALLAS TOM

BURNS NIGEL

 

Court Documents

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

7/24/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE HEARING ON MOTION ...)

7/25/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE HEARING ON MOTION ...)

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO ADVANCE HEARING ON PLAINITIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

7/25/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO ADVANCE HEARING ON PLAINITIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Notice of Ruling

7/8/2019: Notice of Ruling

Complaint -

9/19/2016: Complaint -

Opposition - LIMITED OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE MSA

7/24/2019: Opposition - LIMITED OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE MSA

Minute Order -

2/22/2017: Minute Order -

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order -

5/1/2017: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order -

Legacy Document -

6/29/2017: Legacy Document -

Legacy Document -

7/17/2017: Legacy Document -

Legacy Document -

8/29/2017: Legacy Document -

Legacy Document -

9/21/2017: Legacy Document -

Other - - Civil Deposit

9/25/2017: Other - - Civil Deposit

Minute Order -

10/25/2017: Minute Order -

Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Appearance Case Review Re Consolidation;)

10/29/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Appearance Case Review Re Consolidation;)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Appearance Case Review Re Consolidation of Cases;)

10/29/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Appearance Case Review Re Consolidation of Cases;)

Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

3/20/2019: Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

4/24/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

111 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/02/2020
  • Hearing01/02/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department M at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2019
  • DocketObjection (Defendant Judith Alessi's Objection to Notice of Ruling); Filed by Judith Alessi (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Advance Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Advance Hearing on Motion ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2019
  • DocketOpposition (to plaintiff's ex parte application for order to advance hearing on plainitiffs motion for summary judgment); Filed by MERCEDES BOHBOT (Defendant); MERCEDES BOHBOT (Defendant); JUDITH ALESSI (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2019
  • DocketLimited Opposition to Ex Parte Application to Advance MSA; Filed by Judith Alessi (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application (to Advance Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication); Filed by GRACE CARELLI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2019
  • Docket[Proposed] Order for Preliminary Injunction; Filed by GRACE CARELLI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by GRACE CARELLI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2019
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by GRACE CARELLI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
196 More Docket Entries
  • 01/17/2017
  • DocketMinute Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2017
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2017-01-17 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2016
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by GRACE CARELLI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2016
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2016
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by GRACE CARELLI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2016
  • DocketComplaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2016
  • DocketSummons Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2016
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2016
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by GRACE CARELLI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2016
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by GRACE CARELLI (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC126473    Hearing Date: July 21, 2020    Dept: M

CASE NAME: Grace Carelli v. Mercedes Bohbot

CASE NO.: SC126473

MOTION: Invictus Residential Pooler Trust 2A’s Motion for Leave to intervene

Background

On January 2, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff Grace Carelli’s Motion for Summary Adjudication (“MSA”) on the First, Second and Fifth Causes of Action of the Third Amended Complaint (TAC) for Quiet Title, Intentional Trespass and Ejectment, respectively. (RJN, Ex. “L.”) Invictus Residential Pooler Trust 2A (“IRP Trust”) claims an interest in the property affected by the MSA judgment obtained by Plaintiff, and the IRP Trust Deed of Trust had been of record for more than one year before the hearing on the MSA. Neither IRP Trust nor its predecessor was given notice of the hearing nor named a party to the action.

On May 7, 2020, IRP Trust filed a motion for leave to intervene. The motion is unopposed.

request for judicial Notice

The request for judicial notice is granted.

Legal Standard

For mandatory intervention, Code of Civil Procedure section 387(d) provides that a court shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if either of the following conditions is satisfied:

(A) A provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene.

(B) The person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede that person’s ability to protect that interest, unless that person’s interest is adequately represented by one or more of the existing parties.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 387(d)(1).)

Section 387(d)(2) allows permissive intervention “upon timely application, [to] permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if the person has an interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387(d)(2).)

Analysis

Whether the petitioner has an interest in the matter in litigation is a question of fact that must be determined by the court before leave to file is granted. (Muller v. Robinson (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 511, 515 (Muller); In re Yokohama Special Bank (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 545.) The burden rests on the one seeking to intervene to show that this is a proper case for intervention. (Muller, supra, 174 Cal.App.2d at 515.)

Proposed Intervenor IRP Trust argues that it is entitled to intervention under mandatory intervention. The Trust argues it is entitled to intervene as a matter of right due to its recorded interest in Defendant Judith Alessi’s Property as legally described in the first position Deed of Trust recorded against the property (“IRP Trust DOT”). The Trust argues that the injunction prohibits IRP Trust from exercising its remedy of foreclosure.

Here, the Trust lacks standing to seek leave to intervene or to file a complaint-in-intervention. The trustee of the Trust must be the named intervenor, not the Trust. A trust itself cannot sue or be sued. (Presta v. Tepper (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 909, 914.) “As a general rule, the trustee is the real party in interest with standing to sue and defend on the trust's behalf. [Citations.]” (Estate of Bowles (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 684, 691.) The proposed complaint-in-intervention and this motion are improperly brought in the name of the Trust alone. (See Motion, Ex. A.) The trustee of the Trust is not named. Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice.