Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/01/2019 at 01:50:04 (UTC).

SHERRY HERNANDEZ VS. PNMAC MORTGAGE OPPORTUNITY FUND INVESTO

Case Summary

On 03/06/2013 SHERRY HERNANDEZ filed a Property - Foreclosure lawsuit against PNMAC MORTGAGE OPPORTUNITY FUND INVESTO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Torrance Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RAMONA G. SEE. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8794

  • Filing Date:

    03/06/2013

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Property - Foreclosure

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Torrance Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

RAMONA G. SEE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Appellant

HERNANDEZ SHERRY

Defendants

TRUSTEE CORPS

PNMAC MORTGAGE OPPORTUNITY FUND INVESTORS

MTC FINANCIAL INC.

PNMAC MORTGAGE OPPORTUNITY FUND INVESTORS LLC AKA PNMAC MORTAGE OPPORTUNITY FUND INVESTORS LP

PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES LLC

Not Classified By Court

TEST PARTY FOR TRUST CONVERSION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

HERNANDEZ RHONDA

IMPERIALE JAMES THOMAS

Defendant Attorneys

REYNOLDS RICHARD J.

BLANK ROME LLP

CHANG CHERYL S.

Other Attorneys

ROBERT A. BONITO & ASSOCIATES

IMPERIALE LAW GROUP

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling

3/9/2017: Notice of Ruling

Unknown

4/4/2017: Unknown

Unknown

7/3/2017: Unknown

Unknown

8/23/2017: Unknown

Request for Judicial Notice

9/1/2017: Request for Judicial Notice

Unknown

9/14/2017: Unknown

Unknown

10/10/2017: Unknown

Unknown

12/6/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

1/5/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

1/5/2018: Unknown

Unknown

1/12/2018: Unknown

Unknown

3/15/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

5/9/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

6/13/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

10/22/2018: Minute Order

Motion re:

12/7/2018: Motion re:

Minute Order

1/18/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Motion

1/23/2019: Notice of Motion

99 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion - Other (name extension) (Pro Hac Vice Status) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Motion of Plaintiff to Reinstate Counsel Pro Hac Vice Status ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • Notice (Notice of Appearance by CourtCall at Hearing on Pro Hac Vice Status); Filed by Sherry Hernandez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • Notice of Motion (Notice of continuance on motion to vacate ruling on defendants demurrer to third amended complaint); Filed by Sherry Hernandez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • Notice of Motion (Notice of continuance on motion to tax costs); Filed by Sherry Hernandez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2019
  • at 08:33 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2019
  • at 08:33 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion to Vacate (name extension) (Ruling On Defendants' Demurrer To Third Amended Complaint) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department M; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2018
  • Motion re: (to Reinstate Pro Hac Vice Status of Rhonda Hernandez); Filed by Sherry Hernandez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
254 More Docket Entries
  • 04/08/2013
  • Objection Document Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2013
  • Notice

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2013
  • Declaration; Filed by MTC FINANCIAL, INC. (Defendant); TRUSTEE CORPS (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2013
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2013
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2013
  • OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2013
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2013
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2013
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2013
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: YC068794    Hearing Date: July 15, 2020    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Wednesday, July 15, 2020

Department B Calendar No. 6

PROCEEDINGS

Sherry Hernandez v. PNMAC Mortgage Opportunity Fund Investors, LLC aka PNMAC Mortgage Opportunity Fund Investors, LP, et al.

YC068794

  1. Sherry Hernandez’s Motion to Vacate Ruling on Defendant’s Demurrer to Third Amended Complaint

TENTATIVE RULING

Sherry Hernandez’s Motion to Vacate Ruling on Defendant’s Demurrer to Third Amended Complaint is denied.

Code Civil Procedure § 663 states:

“A judgment or decree, when based upon a decision by the court, or the special verdict of a jury, may, upon motion of the party aggrieved, be set aside and vacated by the same court, and another and different judgment entered, for either of the following causes, materially affecting the substantial rights of the party and entitling the party to a different judgment:

1. Incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision, not consistent with or not supported by the facts; and in such case when the judgment is set aside, the statement of decision shall be amended and corrected.

2. A judgment or decree not consistent with or not supported by the special verdict.”

Pursuant to CCP § 663, Plaintiff moves to vacate the trial Court’s ruling of October 23, 2017 sustaining the Demurrer without leave to amend. First, and most fundamentally, Plaintiff fails to provide applicable authority for the order that she seeks. CCP § 663 cannot be utilized to vacate a judgment following an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend. See, Payne v. Rader (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1576, fn. 4 disapproved of on other grounds in Ryan v. Rosenfeld (2017) 3 Cal.5th 124. “A section 663 motion simply does not lie to vacate a judgment following a demurrer sustained without leave to amend.” Id. at 1575. In addition, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to identify an incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the Court’s order sustaining the Demurrer without leave to amend. The Court takes judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code Section 452(d) of the Appeal Opinion by the Court of Appeal, B287048, dated November 12, 2019, in which all of Plaintiff’s arguments made in the instant Motion were considered and rejected by the Court of Appeal. Likewise, the Court finds that none of the arguments made by Plaintiff with the instant motion are meritorious.

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Wednesday, July 15, 2020

Department B Calendar No. 6

PROCEEDINGS

Sherry Hernandez v. PNMAC Mortgage Opportunity Fund Investors, LLC aka PNMAC Mortgage Opportunity Fund Investors, LP, et al.

YC068794

  1. Sherry Hernandez’s Motion to Tax Costs

TENTATIVE RULING

Sherry Hernandez’s Motion to Tax Costs is denied.

Plaintiff moves to tax Defendants’ costs pursuant to the Memorandum of Costs filed by Defendants on January 8, 2018.

“If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary. On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs. Whether a cost item was reasonably necessary to the litigation presents a question of fact for the trial court and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774 (internal citation omitted).

First, Plaintiff argues that the Memorandum of Costs is confusing, inaccurate, and/or convoluted. However, there is nothing confusing about the Memorandum of Costs. Page 1, Item 1 only lists the total amount for the fees that were set forth on that page. Page 4 Attachment 1g provides further information for the additional filing fees that were incurred and sets forth the total amount of filing fees on that page.

Second, Plaintiff argues that costs are not recoverable for costs incurred before the first appeal. However, after the action was remanded back to the trial Court, Defendant was no longer a prevailing party at that point and could not recover those costs. Those costs are now properly recoverable as this action has fully and completely concluded to resolution, and Defendants are the prevailing parties.

Finally, Defendant has established that each item of costs is recoverable pursuant to CCP § 1033.5. Filing and motion fees are recoverable pursuant to CCP § 1033.5(a)(1). Deposition costs are recoverable pursuant to CCP § 1033.5(a)(3). Service of process costs are recoverable pursuant to CCP § 1033.5(a)(4). Witness fees are recoverable pursuant to CCP § 1033.5(a)(7). Defendant has established that each of these fees were reasonably necessary to the litigation and reasonable in amount.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs is denied.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where PNMAC MORTGAGE OPPORTUNITY FUND INVESTORS LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where TEST PARTY FOR TRUST CONVERSION is a litigant

Latest cases where MTC FINANCIAL INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where TRUSTEE CORPS is a litigant