On 03/02/2018 EVE SHATKIN filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against ALAN MARVIN WOOD. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Torrance Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DEIRDRE HILL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
SHATKIN EVE AN INDIVIDUAL
ALAN M. WOOD AS TRUSTEE OF THE ALAN WOOD REVOCABLE TRUST
DOES 1 THROUGH 25 INCLUSIVE
WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.
WOOD ALAN MARVIN AN INDIVIDUAL & AS...
ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING LEGAL OR...
ALAN MARVIN WOOD
ALAN MARVIN WOOD AS TRUSTEE OF THE ALAN
SHATKIN AN INDIVIDUAL EVE
WOOD ALAN MARVIN
SHATKIN AN INDIVIDUAL JONATHAN
SIMIS MICOLE ELLIOT
CHAPMAN CHRIS C.
3/2/2018: Notice of Case Management Conference
3/20/2018: Legacy Document
6/7/2018: Minute Order
6/7/2018: Legacy Document
6/7/2018: Notice of Related Case
6/27/2018: Legacy Document
7/2/2018: Motion to Consolidate
8/1/2018: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information
8/17/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice
9/12/2018: Other -
9/18/2018: Request for Judicial Notice
11/28/2018: Minute Order
12/26/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice
2/27/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees
4/15/2019: Minute Order
Declaration (of Elizabeth Silacci in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Alan M. Wood, as Trustee of the Alan Wood Revocable Trust (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute Pursuant to C.C.P. 437 (C); Filed by Alan M. Wood, as Trustee of the Alan Wood Revocable Trust (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Motion for Summary Judgment; Filed by Alan M. Wood, as Trustee of the Alan Wood Revocable Trust (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application ( for an Order Striking Defendant Wood's Motion for Summary Judgment) - Held - Motion DeniedRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for an Order Striking Defend...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application; Filed by EVE, SHATKIN (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Request for Judicial Notice; Filed by EVE, SHATKIN (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Ex Parte Application (Ex Parte Application Striking Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and Order for Sanctions $3150); Filed by EVE, SHATKIN (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by PartyRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department B, Deirdre Hill, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Alan M. Wood, as Trustee of the Alan Wood Revocable Trust (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by ALAN MARVIN WOOD (Defendant); ALAN MARVIN WOOD AS TRUSTEE OF THE ALAN (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by EVE, SHATKIN (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by EVE, SHATKIN (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice-Pending Action; Filed by EVE, SHATKIN (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by EVE, SHATKIN (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by EVE, SHATKIN (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by EVE, SHATKIN (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: YC072712 Hearing Date: October 24, 2019 Dept: SWB
Torrance Dept. B
ALAN MARVIN WOOD, et al.,
Hearing Date: October 24, 2019
Moving Parties: Alan Marvin Wood as trustee, as plaintiff in the UD action
Responding Party: Defendants Eve and Jonathan Shatkin
Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, Summary Adjudication
The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.
The motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The motion for summary adjudication is DENIED.
On March 2, 2018, plaintiff Eve Shatkin filed a complaint against Alan Marvin Wood, ind. and as trustee of The Alan Wood Revocable Trust, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
On August 15, 2018, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint for (1) quiet title and adverse possession, (2) partition of real property by sale, (3) accounting, (4) violation of Civil Code §2223, (5) violation of Civil Code §2224, (6) negligence, (7) breach of fiduciary duty, and (8) promissory estoppel.
On November 28, 2018, the court sustained with leave to amend defendant Wells Fargo’s demurrer to the complaint as to the 6th and 7th causes of action. Plaintiff did not file a Second Amended Complaint.
On January 7, 2019, Wood filed a cross-complaint for ejectment and claim for damages.
On May 1, 2018, plaintiff Alan M. Wood, as trustee of the Alan Wood Revocable Trust, filed a UD complaint against Eve and Jonathan Shatkin based on a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit.
On July 2, 2018, the cases were deemed related and consolidated.
The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 843. “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1110, 1119.
“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 1510, 1519.
“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” Avivi, 159 Cal. App. 4th at 467; CCP §437c(c).
Plaintiff Alan Marvin Wood, as trustee of The Alan Wood Revocable Trust, requests that the court enter summary judgment in his favor and against defendants Eve and Jonathan Shatkin pursuant to CCP § 437c on the ground that there is no triable issue of material fact and Wood is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In the alternative, Wood requests summary adjudication of “all affirmative defenses” specified in “defendants’ answers.”
“A party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” CCP §437c. Although the notice does not state, it appears that plaintiff is seeking summary judgment on his UD complaint, and not as to the entire consolidated action, which involves the quiet title FAC and cross-complaint. Plaintiff Wood’s separate statement only addresses the elements of a UD complaint. A ruling as to the UD complaint only is improper because it would not dispose of the entire action and would not resolve the causes of action in the FAC.
The court notes that plaintiff asserts in the memorandum of points and authorities that defendant Shatkin’s claims for constructive trust in the quiet title action are barred by the statute of frauds and statute of limitations. The separate statement, however, does not set forth the FAC’s causes of action for constructive trust or set forth “plainly and concisely all material facts that the moving party contends are undisputed,” as required by CCP §437c(b)(1). Moreover, the notice does not seek adjudication of the FAC’s constructive trust causes of action.
In any event, plaintiff Wood has not met his burden as to the UD complaint.
Under CCP §1161, the elements of unlawful detainer are “[a] tenant of real property, for a term less than life, or the executor or administrator of his or her estate heretofore qualified and now acting or hereafter to be qualified and act, is guilty of unlawful detainer: . . . . 2. When he or she continues in possession, in person or by subtenant, without the permission of his or her landlord, or the successor in estate of his or her landlord, if applicable, after default in the payment of rent, pursuant to the lease or agreement under which the property is held, and three days’ notice, in writing, requiring its payment . . . .”
In the UD complaint, plaintiff is named as “Alan Marvin Wood as trustee of The Alan Wood Revocable Trust” and alleges that on April 1, 2017, defendants agreed to rent the premises as a month-to-month tenancy of $550/month, based on an oral agreement made with plaintiff.
Plaintiff presents no evidence that plaintiff Wood in his capacity “as trustee” made an oral agreement with defendants or that an agreement was made on April 1, 2017. Rather, according to plaintiff, the property was transferred in January 2018 to an irrevocable trust. Elizabeth Silacci decl., Exh. 7. Further, plaintiff presents no evidence of a lease or agreement under which the property is held.
The motion for summary judgment is therefore DENIED.
Alternatively, plaintiff seeks summary adjudication of “all affirmative defenses.” Plaintiff fails to include a separate statement identifying any of defendant’s affirmative defenses, as required by CCP §437c(b)(1). Further, the notice is defective because “[w]here summary adjudication is sought, the notice must specify the ‘specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty’ sought to be adjudicated.” Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial, 10:86 (citing to Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1350(b)). The notice fails to identify the defenses to which the motion is directed.
The motion for summary adjudication is DENIED.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the ruling.