This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/20/2018 at 11:44:41 (UTC).

VALERIE MCCLURE VS BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/31/2016 VALERIE MCCLURE filed an Other lawsuit against BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9315

  • Filing Date:

    10/31/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MCCLURE VALERIE

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INC.

BANK OF NEW YORK THE

WONG-HEIDT PAULINE

CITY ESCROW INC.

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

DUMBECK & DUMBECK

Defendant Attorneys

CHUCK STEPHEN C. ESQ.

CAMPBELL J. OWEN ESQ.

KENNEY MARK JOSEPH ESQ.

WALSER-JOLLY GENEVIEVE R.

HSU ROBERT C. ESQ.

Cross Defendant Attorney

DAVITT VINCENT J.

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

2/14/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL?CIVIL

4/3/2018: DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL?CIVIL

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL?CIVIL

4/3/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL?CIVIL

NOTICE OF CHANGE IN HANDLING ATTORNEY

7/26/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE IN HANDLING ATTORNEY

DECLARATION OF VICTORIA J. TSOONG, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

9/19/2018: DECLARATION OF VICTORIA J. TSOONG, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; DECLARATION OF TROY H. SLOME IN SUPPORT THEREOF; AND EXHIBITS

9/28/2018: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; DECLARATION OF TROY H. SLOME IN SUPPORT THEREOF; AND EXHIBITS

Request

11/1/2018: Request

Declaration

11/1/2018: Declaration

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

11/2/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order

11/2/2018: Minute Order

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION, AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 1. EVASION OF COURT ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT ? CIVIL CODE ? 1714.4(A); ETC

10/31/2016: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION, AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 1. EVASION OF COURT ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT ? CIVIL CODE ? 1714.4(A); ETC

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

11/3/2016: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION'S MOTION TO STRIKE

3/29/2017: PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION'S MOTION TO STRIKE

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF TROY H. SLOME IN SUPPORT THEREOF

4/5/2017: REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF TROY H. SLOME IN SUPPORT THEREOF

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

6/7/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Unknown

6/26/2017: Unknown

Unknown

6/30/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

7/14/2017: Minute Order

78 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/07/2018
  • at 08:33 AM in Department 56; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • at 08:33 AM in Department 56; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 56; Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition (MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2018
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Pauline Wong-Heidt (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2018
  • Notice (name extension) (of Informal Discovery Conference); Filed by Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2018
  • Opposition (name extension) (To Motion To Compel The Deposition of Bank Of New York Mellon); Filed by Valerie Mcclure (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 56; Ex-Parte Proceedings

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2018
  • Ex Parte Application (name extension) (for order for continuance of trial); Filed by Pauline Wong-Heidt (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2018
  • Minute Order ( (1. Defendant Bank of New York Mellon's, Ex parte Application ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) (as to Araceli Archuleta)

    Read MoreRead Less
201 More Docket Entries
  • 12/12/2016
  • Summons; Filed by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Legacy Party); Countrywide Financial Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2016
  • Proof-Personal Service; Filed by Valerie Mcclure (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2016
  • Proof-Personal Service; Filed by Valerie Mcclure (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUNMONS, COMPLAINT, CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET, CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION, NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT-UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE, VOLUNTARY EFFICIENT LITIGATION STIPULATIONS, NOTICE OF RELATED CASE AND NOTICE OF CA

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS, COMPLAINT, CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET, CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION, NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT-UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE, VOLUNTARY EFFICIENT LITIGATION STIPULATIONS, NOTICE OF RELATED CASE AND NOTICE OF CA

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Valerie Mcclure (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION, AND EQUITABLE RELIEF 1. EVASION OF COURT ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT CIVIL CODE 1714.4(A); ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC639315    Hearing Date: January 29, 2020    Dept: 56

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

VALERIE MCCLURE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, et al.

Defendants.

CASE NO.: BC639315

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION TO BIFURCATE; MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER ONE TO EXCLUDE WITNESSES

Date: January 29, 2020

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Valerie McClure

OPPOSING PARTY: Defendant Bank of New York Mellon, fka The Bank of New York, As Trustee for the Certificate Holders of the CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-13

The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) arising from an alleged failure to Plaintiff pursuant to senior child support liens despite a refinancing and short sale of property. Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleging causes of action against Defendants for: (1) evasion of child support; (2) violation of California Penal Code, Section 496(c); (3) conversion; (4) fraudulent transfer; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) set aside judgment; and (7) declaratory relief.

Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court bifurcate and try separately the equitable claims and defenses before trying legal issues. Plaintiff asserts that the equitable claims include: (1) Plaintiff’s fifth and sixth causes of action in the SAC; (2) paragraphs 7, 8, 9, and 13 of the SAC’s prayer for relief; (3) Defendants’ affirmative defense based on the doctrine of equitable subrogation; (4) paragraph 26 of Defendant Bank of New York Mellow, fka The Bank of New York, as trustee for the Certificate Holders of the CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Certficates, Series 2007-13; (5) BNYM’s amended answer to the SAC; and (6) paragraph 16 of Defendant Pauline Wong-Heidt’s answer to the SAC. Plaintiff contends that: (1) deciding equitable issues first will shorten and simplify a subsequent jury trial and may obviate the need for a jury trial entirely; (2) there is a danger the jury would be confused by the extensive evidence and confusing issues relating to the lien priority dispute; and (3) Plaintiff’s legal claims are predicated on her status as a child support judgment creditor with senior lien priority.

Plaintiff also filed motion in limine number one to exclude expert witness testimony offered by Defendant. Plaintiff’s motion in limine number one is made on the grounds that: (1) Defendant demanded a mutual and simultaneous exchange of expert information, received expert witness information from Plaintiff and other parties yet failed to participate in the exchange; (2) Defendant failed to obtain leave of court to submit tardy expert information; and (3) Defendant’s experts’ testimony is not necessary or helpful to resolve the disputed issues.

The Court will address the respective motions filed by Plaintiff within this one ruling.

MOTION TO BIFURCATE

The Court finds that Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate equitable claims and defenses is deficient. Defendant’s opposition—captioned as a response to Plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate—is less than two pages in length and consists of no legal authority and only factual arguments. While Defendant indicates that it “agrees in principle that equitable issues and the issues of lien priority should be tried first by the Court before this matter is submitted to a jury for the non-equitable claims,” Defendant also asserts that the equitable issues to be tried first must be specifically identified for the record before trial commences, which Plaintiff has not done. Defendant further contends that bifurcation should not be limited to the equitable claims and defenses such as equitable subrogation. Defendant, however, cites no legal authority for its assertions. Contentions are deemed abandoned by a party when the party does not provide the Court with “authority bearing upon [a] proposition.” (Heglin v. F.C.B.A. Market (1945) 70 Cal.App.2d 803, 806.)

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate equitable claims and defenses.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER ONE

As indicated above, Plaintiff filed motion in limine number one to exclude expert witness testimony offered by Defendant. Plaintiff’s motion in limine number one is made on the grounds that: (1) Defendant demanded a mutual and simultaneous exchange of expert information, received expert witness information from Plaintiff and other parties yet failed to participate in the exchange; (2) Defendant failed to obtain leave of court to submit tardy expert information; and (3) Defendant’s experts’ testimony is not necessary or helpful to resolve the disputed issues.

Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion on the grounds that: (1) its expert designations are timely, as the Court’s November 2, 2019 order continued the disclosure date; (2) it did not unreasonably fail to comply with the expert information exchange requirements; and (3) Plaintiff lacks standing based on her failure to comply with California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2034.260.

Issue No.1: Standing

California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2034.300 requires that a party who wishes to exclude expert opinion testimony must have “made a complete and timely compliance with Section 2034.260.” California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2034.260(c) requires that an expert witness declaration include: (1) a brief narrative statement of the qualifications of each expert; (2) a brief narrative statement of the general substance of the testimony that the expert is expected to give; (3) a representation that the expert has agreed to testify at the trial; (4) a representation that the expert will be sufficiently familiar with the pending action to submit to a meaningful oral deposition concerning the specific testimony, including an opinion and its basis, that the expert is expected to give at trial; and (5) a statement of the expert’s hourly and daily fee for providing deposition testimony and for consulting with the retaining attorney. The requirements outlined in California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2034.260(c) are mandatory and are not optional. “The phrase expert witness declaration does not exist in a vacuum.” (Bonds v. Roy (1999) 20 Cal.4th 140, 145.) “[I]t is a term of art, referring to a declaration that meets each of five separate content requirements.” (Id.) “[T]he very purpose of the expert witness discovery statute is to give fair notice of what an expert will say at trial.” (Id. at 146.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s expert witness disclosure with respect to Mr. James Fox is not sufficient. (Lee Decl. at Exhibit I.) Plaintiff’s expert witness disclosure does not provide a brief narrative of Mr. Fox’s qualifications besides a statement that he is a licensed California attorney. (Id.) There is no indication of: (1) Mr. Fox’s educational background; (2) his relevant experiences; or (3) his qualifications that warrant his ability to give testimony on the matters indicated in the expert witness disclosure.

Thus, Plaintiff’s failure to submit a sufficient and complete expert witness disclosure precludes Plaintiff from challenging the expert witness testimony of Defendant under California Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 2034.300 and 2034.260(c) as well as the language articulated in the Bonds case.

The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s motion in limine number one to exclude expert witness testimony offered by Defendant.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 29th day of January 2020

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court