This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/26/2019 at 16:08:30 (UTC).

HORACE WILLIAMS JR. ET AL. VS OCWEN LOAN SERVICING ET AL.

Case Summary

On 05/20/2015 HORACE WILLIAMS JR filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against OCWEN LOAN SERVICING. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RALPH C. HOFER and JOHN P. DOYLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3856

  • Filing Date:

    05/20/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

RALPH C. HOFER

JOHN P. DOYLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

WILLIAMS III HORACE

WILLIAMS JR. HORACE

WILLIAMS THERESA

Defendants and Cross Defendants

ACE SECURITIES CORP. HOME EQUITY LOAN TRU

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS

NDEX WEST LLC

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC

ONEWEST BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

VALLEY PROPERTY INVESTORS LLC

FIRST AMERICAN TITLE - DOE 13

CENTURY 21 GOLDEN REALTY - DOE 14

PETROSSIAN HAIKANOUSH - DOE 11

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AKA COURT SERVICES

LES ZIEVE - DOE 1

OLD REPUBLIC TITLE - DOE 9

CARTER SHERRI R

KEY FINANCIAL SERVICES - DOE 15

LAW OFFICES OF LES ZIEVE - DOE 1

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

VALLEY PROPERTY INVESTORS LLC

Trustee

JP MOGRAN CHASE BANK

13 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

DE CLUE JOSEPH L.

DE CLUE JOSEPH L. SBN 163954

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

FIRST AMERICA LAW GROUP

BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TREDER& WEISS LLP

RONALD K. GILLER

ALVARADO STEVE P.

HOUSER & ALLISON

JAQUEZ LEMUEL BRYANT

ZIEVE BRODNAX & STEELE LLP

HOUSER & ALLISON APC

STEELE JOHN CHRISTOPHER

ALVARADO STEVEN P

Cross Defendant Attorney

JOHN C. STEELE SBN #179875

Other Attorneys

BENTON ORR DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM

GILLER RONALD KARL

 

Court Documents

Unknown

7/15/2015: Unknown

Minute Order

8/3/2015: Minute Order

Unknown

8/18/2015: Unknown

Unknown

8/18/2015: Unknown

Unknown

3/10/2016: Unknown

Case Management Statement

3/22/2016: Case Management Statement

Unknown

7/29/2016: Unknown

Unknown

9/1/2016: Unknown

Unknown

11/17/2016: Unknown

Minute Order

1/27/2017: Minute Order

Notice

7/19/2017: Notice

Unknown

2/7/2018: Unknown

Request for Judicial Notice

2/22/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Unknown

4/13/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

4/20/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

6/22/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

11/15/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

3/8/2019: Minute Order

277 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/17/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department D; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department D; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department D; Hearing on Motion for an Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt (CCP 1209) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department D; Hearing on Motion - Other (Motion to Challenge Jurisdiction filed on behalf of Plaintiff in Pro Per Theresa Williams) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department D; Order to Show Cause Re: (Service and Sanctions pursuant to Rules 3.110(b) and 3.110(f) CRC;) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department D; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment (filed on behalf of Defendant/Cross-Complainant Valley Property Investors LLC Advanced from 11/16/18 by Court Order and Continued to 11/18/18 via CRS) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department D; Status Conference (reMediation and Discovery) - Held - Advanced and Heard

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment (Default Entered as to Horrace B. Williams, Jr.); Filed by THERESA WILLIAMS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department D; Order to Show Cause Re: (reMandatory Settlement Conference) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: re: Mandatory Settlement Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
595 More Docket Entries
  • 06/09/2015
  • Proof of Service; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2015
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by HORACE WILLIAMS III (Plaintiff); HORACE WILLIAMS JR. (Plaintiff); THERESA WILLIAMS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2015
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2015
  • Notice of Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2015
  • Summons; Filed by HORACE WILLIAMS III (Plaintiff); HORACE WILLIAMS JR. (Plaintiff); THERESA WILLIAMS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2015
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by HORACE WILLIAMS III (Plaintiff); HORACE WILLIAMS JR. (Plaintiff); THERESA WILLIAMS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2015
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by HORACE WILLIAMS III (Plaintiff); HORACE WILLIAMS JR. (Plaintiff); THERESA WILLIAMS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2015
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued (COMPLAINT FOR: 1. CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS; 2. FRAUD; 3. NEGLIGENCE; 4. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION; 5. WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE... RECEIPT: GLN538418012 05-20-15); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2015
  • Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2015
  • Notice (of Order to Show Cause re: failure to comply with trial court delay reduction act); Filed by HORACE WILLIAMS III (Plaintiff); THERESA WILLIAMS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC063856    Hearing Date: September 18, 2020    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 19

Date: 9/18/20

Case No: EC 063856 Trial Date: None Set

Case Name: Williams, et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al.

MOTION TO CHALLENGE JURISDICTION

MOTIONS TO CORRECT ERROR

MOTIONS FOR STAY

Moving Party: Plaintiff Theresa Williams

Responding Party: Defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al. (No Opposition)

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Determine jurisdiction

Correct errors in five year time limit, case type, location of real property

Stay matter for 180 days to conduct discovery in federal court

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Plaintiff Horace Williams Jr., Horace Williams III and Theresa Williams bring this action alleging that defendants wrongfully foreclosed upon their property in Altadena based on a forged deed of trust. Plaintiffs further allege that the forged deed of trust encumbered only 75% of the property, with 25% undivided title interest remaining to plaintiff Williams Jr. by grant deed.

The file shows that three motions to challenge jurisdiction, correct errors and stay the matter, were originally heard on June 28, 2019. The minute order indicates that plaintiff Theresa Williams filed a challenge for cause against the Honorable Ralph C. Hofer along with an application for continuance. On the court’s own motion, the hearing was continued to July 26, 2019.

On July 26, 2019, the matters were heard. The Court had published its tentative ruling the evening of July 25, 2019, which was to not consider the three motions, due to lack of proof of service and lack of memoranda. At the hearing, plaintiff presented the court with a Notice of Stay of Proceedings filed that morning. The Court asked plaintiff the nature of the stay and plaintiff responded that she had several appeals pending and multiple cases, and that she is “claiming a ‘hardship’ and is overwhelmed.” The Court granted plaintiff’s request for a sixty day stay and continued the matters to September 27, 2019.

The matters have since been further continued several times, including a hearing on “Notice of Clerk Error as to Appeal,” with a continuance granted on January 31, 2020 to permit the self-represented plaintiff to complete an application for a court reporter.

On December 9, 2029, a Remittitur was received by the Court from the Court of Appeal ordering that an appeal initiated by plaintiff’s notice of appeal of July 5, 2019 from an order striking plaintiff’s Fourth Statement of Disqualification was dismissed as having been taken from a non-appealable order. The Remittitur states that respondents are to recover costs on appeal.

It appears that also on calendar is an ex parte proceeding for a Request for Expedited Reconsideration, for an extension of time to respond, and to stay proceedings re mediation, which proceeding was continued to this date. The papers on that motion were originally filed on November 16, 2016.

There have been no further papers filed which are linked to or mention the subject matters, and no proofs of service, so the court’s previous order may become the order of the court. On June 23, 2020, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Judicial Notice as it Pertains to Request for Order of Related Cases,” which does not appear to pertain to the matters on for hearing this date.

This matter was originally heard on July 17, 2020. The court’s detailed tentative ruling was published on the evening before the hearing, July 16, 2020. At the hearing, plaintiff Theresa Williams represented to the court that the hearing was placed on calendar to set the motions. The Court accordingly continued the matters to be heard on August 28, 2020, this date, and also set a Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion) for hearing. There have been no moving papers filed in support of a Motion to Reclassify.

At the hearing on August 28, 2020, the court’s minute orders, including a minute order dated August 28, 2020, and a nunc pro tunc order dated September 1, 2020, reflect that the court’s tentative ruling was published on the evening of Thursday, August 27, 2020, and that the court, finding no further papers had been filed since the July 17, 2020 hearing, tentatively ruled that the court’s tentative ruling of July 17 would become the order of the court.

The court’s August 28, 2020 minute order indicates that on August 28, 2020, the matters came on calendar with only plaintiff Theresa Williams present before the court, and that the court was informed that the court was on the wait list for Court Reporter availability. The minute order states, “It is nearing the noon hour and the Court on its own motion, continues matter to 9/18/2020…”

No further papers have been filed related to these matters since the July 17, 2020 hearing, or the August 28, 2020 hearing, and the court’s tentative ruling of those dates will now become the order of this court.

RULING:

[No Opposition]

No further papers having been filed since the matters were continued from July 26, 2019, from July 17, 2020, and August 28, 2020, this Court’s previous tentative ruling, published on the evening of July 25, 2019, on the evening of July 16, 2020, and on the evening of August 27, 2020 now becomes the order of the court:

Motion to Challenge Jurisdiction is NOT CONSIDERED BY THE COURT. There is no proof of service showing service of the moving papers on the other parties to the action. To the extent plaintiffs have failed to serve parties, and moving party argues there are no defendants affected by the motion, the moving papers are not accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities, and it is not clear under what legal authority the motion is made, what exact relief is sought (determine the jurisdiction of the subject matter?) and how plaintiff is legally entitled to relief. See CRC Rule 3.1112(a)(3); CRC Rule 3.1113(b) (“The memorandum must contain a statement of the facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.”); CRC Rule 3.1113(a) (“The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion…is not meritorious and cause for its denial…”).

Motion to Correct Error and Motion to Correct Administrative Error are NOT CONSIDERED BY THE COURT. There is no proof of service showing service of the moving papers on the other parties to the action. To the extent plaintiffs have failed to serve parties, and moving party argues there are no defendants affected by the motions, the moving papers are not accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities, and it is not clear under what legal authority the motions are made, or how plaintiff is legally entitled to relief. See CRC Rule 3.1112(a)(3); CRC Rule 3.1113(b) (“The memorandum must contain a statement of the facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.”); CRC Rule 3.1113(a) (“The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion…is not meritorious and cause for its denial…”).

Motion for Stay is NOT CONSIDERED BY THE COURT. There is no proof of service showing service of the moving papers on the other parties to the action. To the extent plaintiffs have failed to serve parties, and moving party argues there are no defendants affected by the motion, the moving papers are not accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities, and it is not clear under what legal authority the motion is made, or how plaintiff is legally entitled to relief. See CRC Rule 3.1112(a)(3); CRC Rule 3.1113(b) (“The memorandum must contain a statement of the facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.”); CRC Rule 3.1113(a) (“The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion…is not meritorious and cause for its denial…”). The motion, filed on May 16, 2019, and requesting a stay of 180 days to conduct further discovery in federal court, appears to be moot, given the passage of more than that amount of time since the motion was filed.

The Court also notes that the matter is evidently also on calendar on a “Notice of Clerk Error as to Appeal Filed 7/05/2019.” The paper filed does not set forth a date or time for hearing, and it is not clear what relief is sought. The document references an Exhibit #1 attached to the brief, but there is no Exhibit #1 attached or in the court records. It is not clear what relief is sought. To the extent it is a motion, it is NOT CONSIDERED BY THE COURT. There is no proof of service showing service of the moving papers on the other parties to the action. To the extent plaintiffs have failed to serve parties, and moving party argues there are no defendants affected by the motion, the moving papers are not accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities, and it is not clear under what legal authority the motion is made, or how plaintiff is legally entitled to relief. See CRC Rule 3.1112(a)(3); CRC Rule 3.1113(b) (“The memorandum must contain a statement of the facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.”); CRC Rule 3.1113(a) (“The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion…is not meritorious and cause for its denial…”). It also appears that any matter in connection with the July 5, 2019 appeal would be moot in light of the resolution of the appeal and the receipt of remittitur by this Court from the Court of Appeal on December 9, 2019.

The Court also notes that the matter is on calendar for Ex Parte Proceedings for Request for Expedited Reconsideration, Motion for Extension of Time to Respond and Motion to Stay Proceedings re Mediation Setting. This matter is evidently based on papers filed by plaintiff on November 16, 2016, which matter was ruled upon by this Court by minute order dated November 18, 2016, pursuant to which the Court ruled, “Court GRANTS Plaintiff Teresa William’s Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time to Respond,” and made orders continuing pending motions to permit plaintiff the opportunity to respond. The matter is accordingly MOOT, as having already been ruled upon.

The Court in addition to the above orders, notes that the matter is on calendar for a Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion), but that no papers have been filed in support of such a motion. The motion is accordingly NOT CONSIDERED BY THE COURT. This ruling is without prejudice to the filing of a noticed motion to reclassify.

GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO PROMOTE APPROPRIATE SOCIAL DISTANCING, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

Please make arrangements in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org, and scheduling a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers an audio-only appearance option at a current cost of $15.00 and a video appearance option at a cost of $23.00. Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear, unless they have obtained advance permission of the Court. Anyone who appears in person for the hearing will be required to comply with strict social distancing measures, including, but not limited to, assigned seating, capacity limitations in the courtroom, designated waiting areas, and strictly enforced spacing in line to communicate with court staff. If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.

Case Number: EC063856    Hearing Date: July 17, 2020    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 19

Date: 7/17/20

Case No: EC 063856 Trial Date: None Set

Case Name: Williams, et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al.

MOTION TO CHALLENGE JURISDICTION

MOTIONS TO CORRECT ERROR

MOTIONS FOR STAY

Moving Party: Plaintiff Theresa Williams

Responding Party: Defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al. (No Opposition)

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Determine jurisdiction

Correct errors in five year time limit, case type, location of real property

Stay matter for 180 days to conduct discovery in federal court

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Plaintiff Horace Williams Jr., Horace Williams III and Theresa Williams bring this action alleging that defendants wrongfully foreclosed upon their property in Altadena based on a forged deed of trust. Plaintiffs further allege that the forged deed of trust encumbered only 75 % of the property, with 25% undivided title interest remaining to plaintiff Williams Jr. by grant deed.

The file shows that three motions to challenge jurisdiction, correct errors and stay the matter, were originally heard on June 28, 2019. The minute order indicates that plaintiff Theresa Williams filed a challenge for cause against the Honorable Ralph C. Hofer along with an application for continuance. On the court’s own motion, the hearing was continued to July 26, 2019.

On July 26, 2019, the matters were heard. The Court had published its tentative ruling the evening of July 25, 2019, which was to not consider the three motions, due to lack of proof of service and lack of memoranda. At the hearing, plaintiff presented the court with a Notice of Stay of Proceedings filed that morning. The Court asked plaintiff the nature of the stay and plaintiff responded that she had several appeals pending and multiple cases, and that she is “claiming a ‘hardship’ and is overwhelmed.” The Court granted plaintiff’s request for a sixty day stay and continued the matters to September 27, 2019.

The matters have since been further continued several times, including a hearing on “Notice of Clerk Error as to Appeal,” with a continuance granted on January 31, 2020 to permit the self-represented plaintiff to complete an application for a court reporter.

On December 9, 2029, a Remittitur was received by the Court from the Court of Appeal ordering that an appeal initiated by plaintiff’s notice of appeal of July 5, 2019 from an order striking plaintiff’s Fourth Statement of Disqualification was dismissed as having been taken from a non-appealable order. The Remittitur states that respondents are to recover costs on appeal.

It appears that also on calendar is an ex parte proceeding for a Request for Expedited Reconsideration, for an extension of time to respond, and to stay proceedings re mediation, which proceeding was continued to this date. The papers on that motion were originally filed on November 16, 2016.

There have been no further papers filed which are linked to or mention the subject matters, and no proofs of service, so the court’s previous order may become the order of the court. On June 23, 2020, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Judicial Notice as it Pertains to Request for Order of Related Cases,” which does not appear to pertain to the matters on for hearing this date.

RULING:

[No Opposition]

No further papers having been filed since the matters were continued from July 26, 2019, this court’s previous tentative ruling, published on the evening of July 25, 2019 now becomes the order of the court:

Motion to Challenge Jurisdiction is NOT CONSIDERED BY THE COURT. There is no proof of service showing service of the moving papers on the other parties to the action. To the extent plaintiffs have failed to serve parties, and moving party argues there are no defendants affected by the motion, the moving papers are not accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities, and it is not clear under what legal authority the motion is made, what exact relief is sought (determine the jurisdiction of the subject matter?) and how plaintiff is legally entitled to relief. See CRC Rule 3.1112(a)(3); CRC Rule 3.1113(b) (“The memorandum must contain a statement of the facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.”); CRC Rule 3.1113(a) (“The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion…is not meritorious and cause for its denial…”).

Motion to Correct Error and Motion to Correct Administrative Error are NOT CONSIDERED BY THE COURT. There is no proof of service showing service of the moving papers on the other parties to the action. To the extent plaintiffs have failed to serve parties, and moving party argues there are no defendants affected by the motions, the moving papers are not accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities, and it is not clear under what legal authority the motions are made, or how plaintiff is legally entitled to relief. See CRC Rule 3.1112(a)(3); CRC Rule 3.1113(b) (“The memorandum must contain a statement of the facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.”); CRC Rule 3.1113(a) (“The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion…is not meritorious and cause for its denial…”).

Motion for Stay is NOT CONSIDERED BY THE COURT. There is no proof of service showing service of the moving papers on the other parties to the action. To the extent plaintiffs have failed to serve parties, and moving party argues there are no defendants affected by the motion, the moving papers are not accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities, and it is not clear under what legal authority the motion is made, or how plaintiff is legally entitled to relief. See CRC Rule 3.1112(a)(3); CRC Rule 3.1113(b) (“The memorandum must contain a statement of the facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.”); CRC Rule 3.1113(a) (“The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion…is not meritorious and cause for its denial…”). The motion, filed on May 16, 2019, and requesting a stay of 180 days to conduct further discovery in federal court, appears to be moot, given the passage of more than that amount of time since the motion was filed.

The Court also notes that the matter is evidently also on calendar on a “Notice of Clerk Error as to Appeal Filed 7/05/2019.” The paper filed does not set forth a date or time for hearing, and it is not clear what relief is sought. The document references an Exhibit #1 attached to the brief, but there is no Exhibit #1 attached or in the court records. It is not clear what relief is sought. To the extent it is a motion, it is NOT CONSIDERED BY THE COURT. There is no proof of service showing service of the moving papers on the other parties to the action. To the extent plaintiffs have failed to serve parties, and moving party argues there are no defendants affected by the motion, the moving papers are not accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities, and it is not clear under what legal authority the motion is made, or how plaintiff is legally entitled to relief. See CRC Rule 3.1112(a)(3); CRC Rule 3.1113(b) (“The memorandum must contain a statement of the facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.”); CRC Rule 3.1113(a) (“The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion…is not meritorious and cause for its denial…”). It also appears that any matter in connection with the July 5, 2019 appeal would be moot in light of the resolution of the appeal and the receipt of remittitur by this Court from the Court of Appeal on December 9, 2019.

The Court also notes that the matter is on calendar for Ex Parte Proceedings for Request for Expedited Reconsideration, Motion for Extension of Time to Respond and Motion to Stay Proceedings re Mediation Setting. This matter is evidently based on papers filed by plaintiff on November 16, 2016, which matter was ruled upon by this Court by minute order dated November 18, 2016, pursuant to which the Court ruled, “Court GRANTS Plaintiff Teresa William’s Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time to Respond,” and made orders continuing pending motions to permit plaintiff the opportunity to respond. The matter is accordingly MOOT, as having already been ruled upon.

GIVEN THE RECENT CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED, DEPARTMENT D WILL ALLOW APPEARANCES ONLY BY COURTCALL.

Please make such arrangements in advance if you wish to appear via CourtCall at (888) 882-6878 (or www.courtcall.com). Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are not to personally appear, absent a compelling emergency reason. If none of the litigants on a matter set up a CourtCall appearance, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.