This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/17/2019 at 12:06:03 (UTC).

GUNTER ZIELKE ET AL VS ERIC SCOTT ROSENSTIEL ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/28/2016 GUNTER ZIELKE filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against ERIC SCOTT ROSENSTIEL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GREGORY W. ALARCON. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8570

  • Filing Date:

    07/28/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

GREGORY W. ALARCON

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Respondents

ZIELKE GUNTER

ZIELKE GUNTER. TRUSTEE OF THE FEDERAL

ZIELKE PRAPAPUN

Defendants, Respondents and Appellants

ROSENSTIEL ERIC SCOTT

STEELE ERIC

STERN MARSHA

STEELE SCOTT

ALFORD RANDALL ALAN

STERN MARSHA. AS TRUSTEE OF THE FEDERAL

DOES 1-50

ZIELKE GUNTER

Not Classified By Court

SCOTT ERIC ROSENSTIEL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

ADVOCATE LEGAL

MURPHY SUSAN MEDAGLIA

Defendant Attorneys

PRATT CHAD T-W

HUGHES JENNIFER ESQ.

BACHMAN ROBERT LEWIS

 

Court Documents

Unknown

12/22/2017: Unknown

RULING RE: MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS FOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT.

3/16/2018: RULING RE: MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS FOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT.

NOTICE OF FEES DUE FOR CLERK'S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL (CIVIL)

7/6/2018: NOTICE OF FEES DUE FOR CLERK'S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL (CIVIL)

Proof of Service

9/10/2018: Proof of Service

Notice of Motion

10/23/2018: Notice of Motion

Declaration

1/17/2019: Declaration

Declaration

1/25/2019: Declaration

Supplemental Declaration

1/25/2019: Supplemental Declaration

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

1/25/2019: Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Unknown

2/20/2019: Unknown

Unknown

2/21/2019: Unknown

Ex Parte Application

2/25/2019: Ex Parte Application

Notice

3/7/2019: Notice

Notice

3/26/2019: Notice

Subpoena Duces Tecum and Proof of Service

4/29/2019: Subpoena Duces Tecum and Proof of Service

SUMMONS

7/28/2016: SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

1/17/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

3/23/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

159 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/07/2019
  • Clerk's Notice of Non-Compliance of Default on Appeal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 36, Gregory W. Alarcon, Presiding; Hearing on Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 36, Gregory W. Alarcon, Presiding; Hearing on Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Scott Eric Rosenstiel Erroneously Sued As Eric Scott Rosenstiel (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Order (Defendants' Special Motion to Strike Denied); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Scott Eric Rosenstiel Erroneously Sued As Eric Scott Rosenstiel (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Response (to Notice of Related Case, Per CRC 3.300(g)); Filed by Scott Eric Rosenstiel Erroneously Sued As Eric Scott Rosenstiel (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Appeal - Notice of Default Issued; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103 ("U"); Filed by Scott Eric Rosenstiel Erroneously Sued As Eric Scott Rosenstiel (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
240 More Docket Entries
  • 08/10/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2016
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2016
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2016
  • VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. QUIET TITLE; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Gunter Zielke (Plaintiff); Zielke, Gunter., Trustee of the Federal (Plaintiff); Prapapun Zielke (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC628570    Hearing Date: October 14, 2020    Dept: 36

*COUNSEL - YOU CANNOT SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE PRIOR TO THE HEARING*

 

 

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 36

ZIELKE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ROSENSTIEL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC628570

Hearing Date: 10/14/2020

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Defendant Scott Eric Rosenstiel’s Motion to Stay Proceedings

Defendant Scott Eric Rosenstiel’s Motion to Stay Proceedings is placed off calendar.

 

Defaulted Defendant

The court’s register of actions for this action shows that on July 26, 2019, default was entered as to Defendant Scott Eric Rosenstiel, aka Scott Steele, aka Eric Steel, an individual. Default was not entered as to Defendant Marsha Stern as an individual, or Marsha Stern as Trustee of the Federal Homeowners Relief Foundation. There is no showing that default has been vacated or set aside.

The instant motion was filed by Defendant Scott Eric Rosenstiel. (See Mot. at p. 1.)

“A defendant against whom a default is entered is out of court and is not entitled to take any further steps in the cause affecting plaintiff's right of action.” (Christerson v. French (1919) 180 Cal. 523, 525.) As there is no record showing that default has been set aside, Defendant Rosenstiel is out of court and is not entitled to make the motion. (See also Forbes v. Cameron Petroleums, Inc. (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 257, 262 (demurrer filed after default a “legal nullity”).) Accordingly, the motion is placed off calendar as Defendant Rosenstiel remains in default.

Dated: ____________________________

Gregory Alarcon

Superior Court Judge

Case Number: BC628570    Hearing Date: July 01, 2020    Dept: 36

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 36

ZIELKE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ROSENSTIEL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC628570

Hearing Date: 7/1/2020

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Defendants/Appellants’ Proposed Settled Statement on Appeal

The hearing on Defendants/Appellants’ proposed settled statement is continued to August 28, 2020.

Defendants/Appellants are ordered to file and serve a corrected proposed settled statement in compliance with Rule 8.137 within fifteen days of this order.

Respondents may serve and file any proposed amendments as provided under Rule 8.137 within thirty-five days of this order.

Eligibility to Use Settled Statement

California Rules of Court, Rule 8.137(b) provides that an appellant may elect to use a settled statement as the record of oral proceedings in the superior court without filing a motion if the designated oral proceedings in the superior court were not reported by a court reporter.

On May 14, 2019 this Court denied Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike (anti-SLAPP). Appearances were made by both sides. (Minute Order of May 14, 2019.) The court ruled that its tentative ruling was the order of the Court and filed on that date. (Id.)

On June 14, 2019, Defendants/Appellants Rosenstiel and Stern appealed the May 14, 2019 denial. (Notice of Appeal (“U1”) filed June 14, 2019.) On June 25, 2019, Defendants/Appellants filed a Notice Designating Record on Appeal, in which Defendants elected to proceed with a record of oral proceedings in the Superior Court provided by a settled statement under Rule 8.137. (Appellants’ Notice Designating Record on Appeal, p. 1.)

Defendants/Appellants’ grounds are that oral proceedings were not reported by a court reporter. (Id., ¶ 2(b).) Accordingly, Defendants/Appellants may elect to use a settled statement as the record of the oral proceedings without having filed a motion in the superior court. (CRC Rule 8.137(b).)

Contents of Proposed Settled Statement

California Rules of Court, Rule 8.137(d) provides that the proposed statement must (1) contain a statement of the points the appellant is raising on appeal; (2) contain a condensed narrative of the oral proceedings specified by the appellant; and (3) have attached to it a copy of the judgment or order being appealed.

Defendants/Appellants provide a statement of points for their appeal. (See Appellants’ Proposed Settled Statement, ¶ 2, Attachment 2b.) Defendants/Appellants next provide no testimony was given by the parties or by nonparty witnesses. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 4.)

However, Defendants/Appellants have not provided a condensed narrative of the oral proceedings specified by the appellant. (See Appellants’ Proposed Settled Statement, ¶ 6, Attachment 6.) Defendants/Appellants’ Summary of Motions is argumentative and primarily restates the arguments of Defendants/Appellants’ motions. The proposed settled statement must therefore be corrected to be in compliance with Rule 8.137(d) and provide a condensed narrative of the oral proceedings.

The court additionally notes that Defendants/Appellants incorrectly indicate that, on June 25, 2019, the court sent Defendants/Appellants an order granting the request to use a settled statement. (See Appellants’ Proposed Settled Statement, ¶ 1(c).) June 25, 2019, is the date that Defendants/Appellants filed Appellants’ Notice Designating Record on Appeal, indicating Defendants/Appellants chose to proceed with a settled statement as the record of oral proceedings in the superior court. (See Appellants’ Notice Designating Record on Appeal, ¶ 2(b).)

In addition, Defendants/Appellants incorrectly indicate the court ordered Defendants/Appellants to modify or correct the proposed settled statement on January 17, 2020. (Id. ¶ 1(d).) The order of January 17, 2020 from the Court of Appeal is discussed below.

On August 14, 2019, a Notice of Default in relation to Defendants/Appellants’ appeal was filed for Defendants/Appellants’ failure to timely file a proposed statement on appeal under CRC Rule 8.137(c)(1), and requiring the proposed statement be served and filed with proof of service by August 29, 2019. On September 12, 2019, a Notice of Non-Compliance of Default on Appeal was filed in relation to the appeal, for failure to correct the same defect by August 29, 2019.

On January 17, 2020, the Court of Appeal granted Defendants/Appellants’ motion for relief from default for the same appeal, on condition that Defendants/Appellants’ file a proposed settled statement within 15 days of the date of the order. Defendants/Appellants then timely filed a Proposed Settled Statement on January 28, 2020, for the Appeal of June 14, 2019 appealing the Order of May 14, 2019.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the hearing on Defendants/Appellants’ proposed settled statement is continued.

Defendants/Appellants are ordered to file and serve a corrected proposed settled statement in compliance with Rule 8.137 within fifteen days of this order.Respondents may serve and file any proposed amendments as provided under Rule 8.137 within thirty-five days of this order.

Dated: ____________________________

Gregory Alarcon

Superior Court Judge