Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/31/2016 at 21:55:02 (UTC).

TAKAKO MIKURIYA VS PABLO DANIEL HERNANDEZ ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/29/2014 TAKAKO MIKURIYA filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against PABLO DANIEL HERNANDEZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is TERESA SANCHEZ-GORDON. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6252

  • Filing Date:

    08/29/2014

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • 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

TERESA SANCHEZ-GORDON

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MIKURIYA TAKAKO

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

HERNANDEZ PABLO DANIEL

METROSUN

OCC ELVIS

ROMABELLA PROPERTIES INC

NIKITA BROWN DOE 1

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

LAW OFFICES OF JINA A. NAM & ASSOC.

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

REISS SAUL ESQ.

 

Court Documents

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. RESCISSION OF CONTRACT; ETC

8/29/2014: VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. RESCISSION OF CONTRACT; ETC

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

8/29/2014: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

SUMMONS

8/29/2014: SUMMONS

VERIFIED ANSWER BY DEFENDANTS PABLO DANIEL HERNANDEZ, ELVIS 0CC, METROSUN, INC., NIKITA BROWN AND ROMABELLA PROPERTIES, INC. TO PLAINTIFF TAKAKO MIKURIYA'S VERIFIED COMPLAINT

10/9/2014: VERIFIED ANSWER BY DEFENDANTS PABLO DANIEL HERNANDEZ, ELVIS 0CC, METROSUN, INC., NIKITA BROWN AND ROMABELLA PROPERTIES, INC. TO PLAINTIFF TAKAKO MIKURIYA'S VERIFIED COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF UNAVILABTLITY OF COLFLSEL

11/21/2014: NOTICE OF UNAVILABTLITY OF COLFLSEL

Unknown

12/10/2014: Unknown

NOTICE OF UNAVILABILITY OF COUNSEL

12/11/2014: NOTICE OF UNAVILABILITY OF COUNSEL

Unknown

12/18/2014: Unknown

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

12/18/2014: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

Minute Order

1/5/2015: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

2/9/2015: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

Minute Order

5/21/2015: Minute Order

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITH COURT RETAINING JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO CCP ?664.6

7/1/2015: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITH COURT RETAINING JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO CCP ?664.6

Minute Order

7/2/2015: Minute Order

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITH COURT RETAINING JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO CCP 664.6

7/2/2015: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITH COURT RETAINING JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO CCP 664.6

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

8/14/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

8/14/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

8/17/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

12 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/02/2015
  • Notice-Settlement (PLAINTIFF'S NOTION OF SETTLEMENT ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2015
  • Request for Dismissal (WITH OUT PREJUDICE/ ENTIRE ACTION OTHER: COURT TO RESERVE JURISDICTION UNDER CCP 664.6 ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2015
  • Notice (OF SETTLEMENT AND REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITH COURT RETAINING JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE CCP 664.6 ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2015
  • Notice-Related Cases Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2014
  • Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2014
  • Notice-Related Cases Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2014
  • Notice (of unavilability of Counsel ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2014
  • Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2014
  • Notice (OF UNAVILABILITY OF COUNSEL ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/09/2014
  • Motion to Strike Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/09/2014
  • Answer to Complaint (TO VERIFIED COMPLANT ) Filed by Attorney for Deft/Respnt

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2014
  • Amendment to Complaint (DOE 1. ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2014
  • Notice-Case Management Conference Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2014
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC556252    Hearing Date: February 11, 2021    Dept: 74

BC556252 TAKAKO MIKURIYA VS PABLO DANIEL HERNANDEZ

Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement

TENTATIVE RULING: As the court has previously ruled movant is not a proper successor in interest, the court does not have jurisdiction to hear this motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.31.) The motion is DENIED.

Case Number: BC556252    Hearing Date: February 03, 2021    Dept: 74

BC556252 TAKAKO MIKURIYA VS PABLO DANIEL HERNANDEZ

Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Successor in Interest; OSC re Dismissal

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED. The case is dismissed.

Notice

Defendants argue they did not receive notice of this motion. However, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted proof of service to the addresses listed on Defendants opposing declarations. As Defendants opposed this motion via declaration and Movant submitted proof of service, Defendants received actual notice of this motion and the Court will consider its merits.

Jurisdiction

Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6 states, “If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.”

Plaintiff filed a dismissal of this case on January 2, 2015 without prejudice. The Court received the parties’ notice of settlement on July 1, 2015, which stated in the caption of the case, “dismissal with Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce settlement pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.” Moreover, the Court’s minute order dated July 2, 2015 stated, “The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms and conditions of the settlement pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.” The Court maintains limited jurisdiction to enforce the terms and conditions of the settlement.

Defendants argue the July 2, 2015 dismissal prohibits the Court from maintaining jurisdiction to hear further matters concerning this suit citing RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913 and Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429. However, a court may maintain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement if requested by the parties. (RHF Partners, L.P. v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 913, 917.)

Here, the Court order states it will maintain enforcement jurisdiction. The court exercises its discretion to maintain enforcement jurisdiction related to the settlement of this suit. (City of Los Angeles v. Gleneagle Dev. Co. (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 543, 558.)

Successor in Interest

Code Civ. Proc., § 377.33 states, “The court in which an action is commenced or continued under this article may make any order concerning parties that is appropriate to ensure proper administration of justice in the case, including appointment of the decedent's successor in interest as a special administrator or guardian ad litem.” Furthermore, Code Civ. Proc., § 377.31 states, “On motion after the death of a person who commenced an action or proceeding, the court shall allow a pending action or proceeding that does not abate to be continued by the decedent's personal representative or, if none, by the decedent's successor in interest.”

A successor in interest of a decedent in a pending action or proceeding must execute and file an affidavit or declaration under penalty of law stating: (i) the decedent’s name; (ii) the date and location of decedent’s death; (iii) “No proceeding is now pending in California for administration of the decedent’s estate;” (iv) provide a copy of the final order noting the distribution “of the decedent’s cause of action to the successor in interest,” assuming decedent’s estate was administered; (v) state either, the affiant or declarant is the successor in interest according to CCP §377.11 and succeeds the decedent in the current action or the affiant or declarant may legally act on behalf of the decedent’s successor in interest according to CCP §377.11 in the current action; (vi) no other has a superior right to commence the current action or the right to be substituted in the current action; and (vii) the affiant or declarant states the aforementioned is true and correct under the penalty of perjury under California law. (CCP §377.32.)

Movant declares: she is the beneficiary of Plaintiff; named that Takako Mikuriya, Plaintiff, is deceased; Plaintiff died on November 23, 2014; and Movant is the successor in interest. This declaration does not fully comply with the requirements set forth in CCP §377.32.

Case Number: BC556252    Hearing Date: September 08, 2020    Dept: 74

BC556252 TAKAKO MIKURIYA vs PABLO DANIEL HERNANDEZ

Defendants Romabella Properties, Inc., Elvis OCC, Metrosun, Inc., and Non-Party Ruth Hernandez’ Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED and the judgment entered on September 12, 2019 is VACATED. The court finds this motion is timely and the court does not have jurisdiction over Ashley Cooley. This ruling is made without prejudice to filing a properly noticed motion pursuant to CCP §664.6.

Case Number: BC556252    Hearing Date: September 03, 2020    Dept: 74

BC556252 TAKAKO MIKURIYA VS PABLO DANIEL HERNANDEZ

Defendants’ Motion to Vacate Judgment

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED and the judgment entered on September 12, 2019 is VACATED.

As Defendants filed this motion within six months after the entry of judgment, it is timely.

The court did not have personal jurisdiction over Cooley to enter the judgment.

“…a lack of personal jurisdiction renders a judgment (or default) void, and the default may be directly challenged at any time….they filed a motion to vacate the void default under section 473 within two months after its entry. They preserved the issue of personal jurisdiction and brought an appropriate direct attack on the default.” (Strathvale Holdings v. E.B.H. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1250.) “When a defendant challenges the court's personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the initial burden of “demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction.” (Id.)

Code Civ. Proc., § 377.33 states, “The court in which an action is commenced or continued under this article may make any order concerning parties that is appropriate to ensure proper administration of justice in the case, including appointment of the decedent's successor in interest as a special administrator or guardian ad litem.” Furthermore, Code Civ. Proc., § 377.31 states, “On motion after the death of a person who commenced an action or proceeding, the court shall allow a pending action or proceeding that does not abate to be continued by the decedent's personal representative or, if none, by the decedent's successor in interest.”

A successor in interest of a decedent in a pending action or proceeding must execute and file an affidavit or declaration under penalty of law stating: (i) the decedent’s name; (ii) the date and location of decedent’s death; (iii) “No proceeding is now pending in California for administration of the decedent’s estate;” (iv) provide a copy of the final order noting the distribution “of the decedent’s cause of action to the successor in interest,” assuming decedent’s estate was administered; (v) state either, the affiant or declarant is the successor in interest according to CCP §377.11 and succeeds the decedent in the current action or the affiant or declarant may legally act on behalf of the decedent’s successor in interest according to CCP §377.11 in the current action; (vi) no other has a superior right to commence the current action or the right to be substituted in the current action; and (vii) the affiant or declarant states the aforementioned is true and correct under the penalty of perjury under California law. (CCP §377.32.)

The requirements of CCP §377.32 have not been satisfied here. As such, Cooley is not properly a successor in interest.

The court also lacked jurisdiction to rule on the ex parte application.

Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6 states, “If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.”

Section six of the settlement agreement states “Judgment in accordance with this Agreement may be entered by a judge or commissioner of the Court pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 on an ex parte application without the necessity of a noticed motion.” The settlement agreement is silent to jurisdiction after the entry of settlement. Moreover, Defendants specifically requested the Court not retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full has been rendered.

As this motion is not frivolous, Cooley’s request for attorney’s fees is denied.