This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/07/2019 at 01:03:31 (UTC).

NARCISO RAMIREZ CS. DIANA JIMENEZ, ET. AL.

Case Summary

On 06/21/2016 NARCISO RAMIREZ CS DIANA JIMENEZ was filed as a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Compton Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MAURICE A. LEITER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8467

  • Filing Date:

    06/21/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Compton Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MAURICE A. LEITER

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

NARCISO RAMIREZ

RAMIREZ NARCISO

Defendants

DANIEL GONZALEZ

DOES 1 TO 20 INCLUSIVE

DIANA JIMENEZ

OLGA JIMENEZ

JIMENEZ DIANA

GONZALEZ DANIEL

JIMENEZ OLGA

Other

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

LAW OFFICE OF DAVID T. EGLI

WILLOUGHBY ANTHONY

 

Court Documents

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

7/22/2016: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

7/22/2016: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Answer

7/22/2016: Answer

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

11/15/2016: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

11/15/2016: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

11/15/2016: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

11/15/2016: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

11/15/2016: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order

11/16/2016: Minute Order

Minute Order

9/22/2017: Minute Order

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

7/11/2018: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Notice of Motion

7/11/2018: Notice of Motion

Minute Order

7/18/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

11/19/2018: Minute Order

Motion for Leave to Amend

4/4/2019: Motion for Leave to Amend

Ex Parte Application

4/10/2019: Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

4/11/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

4/22/2019: Minute Order

52 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/03/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Sanctions Against Plainitff Counsel for Failure to Appear on 4/22/19) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • Declaration (of Anthony Willoughby II); Filed by NARCISO RAMIREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Case Management Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal...) of 04/22/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend (Complaint) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
74 More Docket Entries
  • 07/22/2016
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2016
  • Answer; Filed by OLGA JIMENEZ (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2016
  • Answer; Filed by DIANA JIMENEZ (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2016
  • Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by DIANA JIMENEZ (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2016
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by NARCISO RAMIREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2016
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by NARCISO RAMIREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by NARCISO RAMIREZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2016
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2016
  • Notice of case management conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: TC028467    Hearing Date: March 05, 2020    Dept: A

# 8. Narciso Ramirez v. Diana Jimenez, et al.

Case No.: TC028467

Matter on calendar for: Motion for Summary Judgment

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

    This is a quiet title action. Plaintiff Narciso Ramirez alleges that his signature was forged on a deed transferring 2709 Norton Avenue, Lynwood, California 90262 to Defendant Gilberto Quazada. Defendants Diana Jimenez and Olga Jimenez allegedly fraudulently induced the transfer. Defendants are self-represented. Defendant Quazada is in default.

    The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges the following:

  1. Cancellation of Grant Deed and Quiet Title,

  2. Cancellation of Grant Deed and Quiet Title,

  3. Fraud,

  4. Civil Conspiracy,

  5. Accounting, and

  6. Constructive Trust

    Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment against Defendants Diana Jimenez and Olga Jimenez. The motion is unopposed.

    For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds as follows:

  1. Standard

    A “motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (C.C.P., § 437c(c).) "A moving party need only show it is entitled to the benefit of a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence in order to shift the burden of proof to the opposing party to show there are triable issues of fact. [Security Pac. Nat. Bank v. Associated Motor Sales (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 171, 178–179.]" (Alvarez v. Seaside Transportation Services LLC (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 635, 644.) Once the moving party has met its burden of demonstrating that there is no triable issue as to any material fact, the opposing party cannot rest upon the mere allegations of the pleadings but must present admissible evidence showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Company (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 844.) “In ruling on the motion, the court must consider all of the evidence and all of the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom… and must view such evidence… in the light most favorable to the opposing party.” (Id. at 844–845; C.C.P., § 437c(p)(2).) “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (C.C.P., § 437c(f)(1).)

  2. Analysis

    1. Amended Complaint

The Court’s records show Defendants Diana Jimenez and Olga Jimenez have failed to file answers to the FAC. However, the FAC did not make substantive changes as to these defendants; it merely outlined more specifics as to the relief sought. In these circumstances, as outlined in Carrasco v. Craft (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 796, 810, their original answers, which were general denials, are assumed to stand against the FAC.

    1. Fraud and Conspiracy

Plaintiff’s substantive cause of action is fraud. Cancellation of deed, constructive trust, and accounting are remedies to restore Plaintiff. As to conspiracy, “[c]onspiracy is not a cause of action, but a legal doctrine that imposes liability on persons who, although not actually committing a tort themselves, share with the immediate tortfeasors a common plan or design in its perpetration. [Citation.]” (Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 510–511.) Conspiracy requires an agreement by two or more persons to commit a wrongful act. (CACI 3600.) The agreement may be made orally, in writing, or implied via conduct. (Ibid.) Plaintiff must first meet his burden as to fraud.

The elements of fraud are (1) a misrepresentation; (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.) Fraud must be pled with specificity. (Id. at 645.) This “necessitates pleading facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means representations were tendered.” (Ibid.)

Plaintiff provides facts, primarily his own declaration and his requests for admissions, which were deemed admitted, of the following:

These facts, supported by Plaintiff’s declaration, Defendants’ admissions, and the grant deeds align with the elements of fraud: Defendants knowingly misrepresented the transfer to Plaintiff, intending him to transfer the property, he justifiably did so, resulting in damage. The evidence also shows the existence of an agreement between all of the defendants to defraud Plaintiff of the property. This invalidates the second transfer to Defendant Quezada.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has met his prima facie burden of showing no triable issue of material fact. Lacking an opposition, the Court grants the motion for summary judgment.

  1. Ruling

    The motion for summary judgment is granted.

    Next dates:

    Notice:

Case Number: TC028467    Hearing Date: December 19, 2019    Dept: A

#14. Narciso Ramirez v. Diana Jimenez, et al.

Case No.: TC028467

Matter on calendar for: Motion to Deem Requests for Admission as Admitted (x2)

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

    This is a quiet title action. Plaintiff Narciso Ramirez alleges that his signature was forged on a deed transferring 2709 Norton Avenue, Lynwood, California 90262 to defendant Gilberto Quazada. Defendants Diana Jimenez and Olga Jimenez allegedly induced the transfer fraudulently.

    Plaintiff now moves to deem his Requests for Admission as admitted against Defendants Diana Jimenez and Olga Jimenez, who are self-represented. The motions are unopposed.

  2. Standard

    “ ‘Requests for admission . . . are primarily aimed at setting at rest a triable issue so that it will not have to be tried. Thus, such requests, in a most definite manner, are aimed at expediting trial.’ [Citation.]” (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 774–775.) Under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.280(d), if a party fails to timely respond to requests for admission, the propounding party may move for an order deeming the matter admitted. (Id. at 775.) “The court must also impose monetary sanctions upon the party and/or the attorney for the failure to serve a timely response to the RFAs. [C.C.P., § 2033.280(c).]” (Ibid.) If the responding party serves its responses before the hearing the court must deny the motion. (Ibid.) “ ‘But woe betide the party who fails to serve responses before the hearing. In that instance the court has no discretion but to grant the admission motion, usually with fatal consequences for the defaulting party.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.)

  3. Analysis

    Accompanying the two motions are proofs of service and declarations from Plaintiff’s counsel attesting to the lack of response.

    The motions to deem the request for admissions, Set One, as admitted are granted. A monetary sanction of $100 each is assessed.

  4. Ruling

    The motions to deem the requests for admission as admitted are granted. Defendants Diana Jimenez and Olga Jimenez are each sanctioned $100.

    Next dates:

    Notice: