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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Santa Monica Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF
MICHAEL AND MARION BERSTEIN REV. TRUST
CARELLI GRACE AKA GRAZNYA CARELLI
PHILIPS PAUL N.
PHILIPS PAUL N
PHAM TERI THUY
LALLAS TOM PETER
7/24/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
7/25/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE HEARING ON MOTION ...)
7/25/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO ADVANCE HEARING ON PLAINITIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
7/8/2019: Notice of Ruling
9/19/2016: Complaint -
7/24/2019: Opposition - LIMITED OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE MSA
2/22/2017: Minute Order -
5/1/2017: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order -
6/29/2017: Legacy Document -
7/17/2017: Legacy Document -
8/29/2017: Legacy Document -
9/21/2017: Legacy Document -
9/25/2017: Other - - Civil Deposit
10/25/2017: Minute Order -
10/29/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Appearance Case Review Re Consolidation;)
10/29/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Appearance Case Review Re Consolidation of Cases;)
3/20/2019: Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil
4/24/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
Hearing01/02/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department M at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Hearing on Motion for Summary AdjudicationRead MoreRead Less
DocketObjection (Defendant Judith Alessi's Objection to Notice of Ruling); Filed by Judith Alessi (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Advance Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication) - Held - Motion DeniedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Advance Hearing on Motion ...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
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
DocketLimited Opposition to Ex Parte Application to Advance MSA; Filed by Judith Alessi (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketEx Parte Application (to Advance Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication); Filed by GRACE CARELLI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docket[Proposed] Order for Preliminary Injunction; Filed by GRACE CARELLI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by GRACE CARELLI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by GRACE CARELLI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute order entered: 2017-01-17 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by GRACE CARELLI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by GRACE CARELLI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint FiledRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons FiledRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by GRACE CARELLI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by GRACE CARELLI (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
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
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.
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).)
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.