This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/14/2019 at 08:54:33 (UTC).

LISA HASTINGS VS. ABRAHAM KEVORKIAN, ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/29/2016 LISA HASTINGS filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against ABRAHAM KEVORKIAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4909

  • Filing Date:

    01/29/2016

  • 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

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

HASTINGS LISA

Defendants

KEVORKIAN ABRAHAM

ODESHO NANCY

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY

Not Classified By Court

TEST PARTY FOR TRUST CONVERSION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

JAMISON LAW FIRM THE

Defendant Attorneys

MARCELLA LUCENTE

LUCENTE MARCELLA

EARLY ERIC P.

 

Court Documents

Legacy Document

1/29/2016: Legacy Document

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

6/17/2016: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

Legacy Document

10/7/2016: Legacy Document

Substitution of Attorney

1/11/2017: Substitution of Attorney

Legacy Document

2/17/2017: Legacy Document

Request For Copies

4/3/2017: Request For Copies

Legacy Document

6/15/2017: Legacy Document

Request For Copies

6/16/2017: Request For Copies

Legacy Document

7/18/2017: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

1/19/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

1/19/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

1/26/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

1/26/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

2/7/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

2/7/2018: Legacy Document

Request for Judicial Notice

7/10/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Writ - Return

12/18/2018: Writ - Return

Opposition

5/28/2019: Opposition

177 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/09/2019
  • Hearingat 09:30 AM in Department B at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department B at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2019
  • DocketRequest For Copies; Filed by Lisa Hastings (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department B; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department B; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • Docketat 08:35 AM in Department B; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • DocketBrief (Plaintiff's Designation of Expert); Filed by Lisa Hastings (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • DocketMotion in Limine (no.1 and order to exclude the evidence that was not produced and not disclosed in discovery requests; to bar witnesses from testifying at trial who were known to plaintiff but whose identities were not disclosed during discovery and to exclude); Filed by Abraham Kevorkian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • DocketOpposition (to plaintiff's motion in limine no. 3 to exclude any argument, testimony or evidence of plaintiff Lisa Hastings' dealings with Antranik Kevorkian; memorandum of points and authorities in support thereof; declaration of Abraham Kevorkian); Filed by Abraham Kevorkian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • DocketOpposition (to plaintiff's motion in limine no.2 to exclude any argument, testimony or evidence that plaintiff's counsel Guy E. Jamison has stolen the passports out of defendants' mailbox, memorandum of points and authorities in support thereof; declaration of); Filed by Abraham Kevorkian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
219 More Docket Entries
  • 03/01/2016
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by Nancy Odesho (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2016
  • DocketNotice of Demurrer and Demurrers; Filed by Nancy Odesho (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2016
  • DocketMotion re: (Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike Portion of First Amended Complaint); Filed by Abraham Kevorkian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2016
  • DocketMotion re: (Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike Portion of First Amended Complaint); Filed by Nancy Odesho (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2016
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2016
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2016
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2016
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2016
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Lisa Hastings (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2016
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC064909    Hearing Date: November 27, 2019    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

lisa hastings,

Plaintiff,

vs.

abraham kevorkian, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: EC066975

Previously consolidated with: EC064909

Hearing Date: November 27, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motions to compel further responses

Background

  1. Allegations

This action involves the property located at 721 Colman Street, Altadena, California 91001 (“Hastings Property”) owned by Plaintiff Lisa Hastings (“Plaintiff”), and property located at 728 Colman Street, Altadena, CA 91101 (“Kevorkian Property”) owned by Defendants Abraham Kevorkian (“Kevorkian”) and Nancy Odesho (“Odesho”). Plaintiff alleges that the Kevorkian Property has always benefited, as the dominate tenement, over the Hastings Property with a 30-foot wide recorded easement.

Plaintiff also alleges that the Hastings Property receives a benefit of a 34-foot Road and Utility Easement for the northern side of the Kevorkian Property. However, Plaintiff alleges that Kevorkian and Odesho persuaded Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (“Fidelity”) to improperly record a grant deed, unilaterally granting themselves the benefits of the Road and Utility Easement.

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Defendants to enjoin them from using the easement for anything other than ingress and egress, in view of Defendants’ history of parking vehicles in the easement area. The second amended complaint (“SAC”), filed May 14, 2018, alleges causes of action for: (1) quiet title against Kevorkian and Odesho; (2) slander of title against Kevorkian, Odesho, and Fidelity National Title Insurance Company; (3) permanent injunction to compel removal of encroachment against Kevorkian and Odesho; (4) ejectment against Kevorkian and Odesho; and (5) cancellation of written instrument against Kevorkian and Odesho.

On March 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Complaint for: (1) reformation of written instrument; (2) partial cancellation of written instrument; (3) cancellation of written instrument; (4) declaratory relief; (5) slander of title; and (6) permanent injunction. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Complaint involves additional events that occurred after the filing of the SAC, including Defendants taking out a loan on the Kevorkian Property secured by a deed of trust in favor of the lender New Penn Financial, LLC, which includes an allegedly false description based upon the self-granted easement (“New Penn Deed”) and a survey Defendants commissioned from Caliland Engineering, Inc. and Yoon Lai (“Caliland Survey”) which purportedly confirms that the Kevorkian Property is benefited by a 34-foot Road and Utility Easement.

  1. Motions on Calendar

On October 18, 2019, Abraham Kevorkian filed two motions to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set two (“SROG”) and requests for admissions, set two (“RFA”) in Case No. EC066975. On October 21, 2019, he filed a motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, set two (“RPD”). Plaintiff filed opposition briefs on November 15, 2019.

On October 28, 2019, Abraham Kevorkian filed a motion for order deeming the truth of facts and genuineness of documents in Case No. EC064909. On November 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief to this motion but filed it in Case No. EC066975.

DISCUSSIOn

  1. Discovery Cut Off Period

CCP §2024.020(a) states: “Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a y, and to

A non-jury trial is set for December 9, 2019.

Abraham Kevorkian’s discovery motions are currently set for November 27, 2019.

On October 31, 2019, Judge C. Edward Simpson denied Abraham Kevorkian’s ex parte application to continue the trial date and trial-related deadlines. On the Court’s own motion, Judge Simpson advanced the hearing dates of the 3 motions to compel further filed in Case No. EC066975 and the 1 motion to deem RFA admitted in Case No. EC064909, originally set for January 3, 2020 and December 6, 2019 respectively, to November 27, 2019.

Despite advancing the hearing dates on the 4 discovery motions, the motions are still untimely as they violate the discovery cut-off period. As stated in CCP §2024.020(a), discovery motions must be heard on or before the 15th day prior to trial. At least 15 days before the December 9, 2019 trial date would be November 22, 2019 (which accounts for the weekend). Thus, to be timely, Abraham Kevorkian should have reserved earlier hearing dates by or before November 22, 2019, or moved ex parte to advance the hearing dates on the motions so that they complied with the procedural deadline requirements of CCP §2024.020.

Thus, the motions may be denied on this basis.

  1. Timeliness of Motions to Compel Further Responses in Case No. EC066975

Motions to compel further responses must be brought within 45 days of receiving the verified or supplemental verified responses, or as otherwise agreed upon between the parties in writing. (CCP §§2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), 2033.290(c).) An additional 5 days is added where the interrogatory responses are served by mail. (CCP §1013.) The 45-day limitation to move to compel further responses as to interrogatories and document requests is jurisdictional, and courts are without authority to rule on untimely motions to compel except just to deny them. (Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685.) The deadline cannot be circumvented by propounding the same discovery again. (Prof. Career Colleges etc. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 490, 492.)

Plaintiff served her SROG, RPD, and RFA responses/objections on Abraham Kevorkian on August 26, 2019 by mail. (Kevorkian Decl. re SROG, Ex. B; Kevorkian Decl. re RPD, Ex. B; Kevorkian Decl. re RFA, Ex. B.)

These motions were filed on October 18, 2019.

To be within the jurisdictional time period, the motions to compel further should have latest been filed by October 15, 2019. There is also no indication that the parties agreed in writing to extend the time period to file the motions.[1]

As such, the motions to compel further responses were not timely filed. This failure to comply with the jurisdictional time limit is sufficient to deny the 3 motions.

  1. Motion for Order Deeming Truth of Facts and Genuineness in Case No. EC064909

As pointed out by Plaintiff in the opposition brief, the motion is moot because Plaintiff served her responses regarding the RFA on October 14, 2019 and verifications were served on October 29, 2019. Nevertheless, in view of the rapidly approaching trial, the Court reviewed the responses, and finds that they do not directly address the requests. These are simple requests regarding the genuineness of documents or other disputed issues and can be responded to with straightforward admissions or denials. The Court orders Plaintiff to respond within five days with straightforward admissions or denials.

Conclusion and Order

With regard to the 3 motions to compel further responses filed in Case No. EC066975, the motions are denied on the basis of untimeliness pursuant to CCP §§2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), and 2033.290(c). The motion regarding the RFAs in Case No. EC064909 is granted.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.


[1] Abraham Kevorkian argues that the responses were unverified. However, as pointed out by Plaintiff, only responses to discovery need be verified whereas objections need not be verified. (CCP §§2030.250(a), 2031.250(a), 2033.240(a).) Plaintiff essentially served objections in response to the discovery requests.