On 05/25/2017 FERNANDO HERNANDEZ filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against JOSE G GONZALEZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are HIGA, ROBERT J. and MARGARET MILLER BERNAL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
HIGA, ROBERT J.
MARGARET MILLER BERNAL
GONALEZ MAURA AN INDIVIDUAL
HERNANDEZ FERNANDO AN INDIVIDUAL
HERNANDEZ ELSA AN INDIVIDUAL
HERNANDEZ CRISTINA AN INDIVIDUAL
GONZALEZ JOSE G. AN INDIVIDUAL
RIVAS ANTONIA AN INIDIVIDUAL
GRUZMAN ALEKSANDR LAW OFFICES OF
GRUZMAN ALEKSANDR LAW OFFICES OF
LISA JANE JACKSON
JACKSON LISA JANE
DIGIUSEPPE STEPHEN ANTHONY
SHANE DIGIUSEPPE & RODGERS LLP
Court documents are not available for this case.
PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; Filed by MAURA, GONALEZ (Plaintiff); CRISTINA, HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff); ELSA, HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff) et al.Read MoreRead Less
Opposition (To Motion For Leave to File Third Amended Complaint.); Filed by JOSE GONZALEZ (Defendant); MANUEL, GONZALEZ (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Motion for Order (NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT); Filed by MAURA, GONALEZ (Plaintiff); CRISTINA, HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff); ELSA, HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff) et al.Read MoreRead Less
at 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion - OtherRead MoreRead Less
at 09:30 AM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
at 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (to First Amended Complaint) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by CourtRead MoreRead Less
at 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion for Leave (to File Second Amended Complaint) - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
SECOND AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS; Filed by MAURA, GONALEZ (Plaintiff); CRISTINA, HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff); ELSA, HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff) et al.Read MoreRead Less
Order (re: hearing of 3/5/19); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by FERNANDO, HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff); MAURA, GONALEZ (Plaintiff); ELSA, HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff) et al.Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Lis Pendens; Filed by FERNANDO, HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff); MAURA, GONALEZ (Plaintiff); ELSA, HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff) et al.Read MoreRead Less
Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl (BY SUBSTITUTED SERVICE ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by FERNANDO, HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by FERNANDO, HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff); MAURA, GONALEZ (Plaintiff); ELSA, HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff) et al.Read MoreRead Less
Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Notice-Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by FERNANDO, HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff); MAURA, GONALEZ (Plaintiff); ELSA, HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff) et al.Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: VC066323 Hearing Date: November 14, 2019 Dept: SEC
HERNANDEZ v. GONZALEZ
CASE NO.: VC066323
JUDGE: MARGARET M. BERNAL
Defendants JOSE GONZALEZ and MANUEL GONZALEZ’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is DENIED. CCP §437c.
Opposing Party to give notice.
This action for quiet title was filed by Plaintiffs FERNANDO HERNANDEZ; MAURA GONZALEZ; ELSA HERNANDEZ’ and CRISTINA HERNANDEZ (collectively “Plaintiffs”) on May 25, 2017. Plaintiffs allege, in pertinent part, “In August 2009, Antonia Rivas was 65 years of age (D.O.B. 8/8/1944) and residing at her Property in Los Angeles County, California. In August 2009, Defendants conspired to take their mother’s rental income and eventually, her Property by having Jose G. Gonzalez falsely tell Antonia Rivas that he would collect the rental income on her behalf and save the money for her in a bank account, and give the money and interest to the mother upon her request. Jose G. Gonzalez made such false claims to Antonia Rivas and she believed Jose G. Gonzalez’s false representations. Based on such reliance, staring in August 2009, Jose G. Gonzalez collected Antonia Rivas’ rental income and upon information and belief, Defendants Jose G. Gonzalez and Manuel Gonzalez wrongfully and intentionally took, misappropriated, secreted and retained the rental income of Antonia Rivas for their own use from August 2009 through December 2016.” (TAC ¶48.)
The TAC, filed on June 20, 2019, asserts the following causes of action: (1) Fraud/Intentional Misrepresentation; (2) Constructive Trust; (3) Fraud and Deceit (Forged Deed); (5) Conversion; (6) Financial Elder Abuse; and (7) Quiet Title.
Defendants JOSE GONZALEZ and MANUEL GONZALEZ (collectively “Defendants”) now move for summary adjudication of Plaintiffs’ sixth cause of action for elder abuse. Defendants specifically argue that Plaintiffs’ cannot state a cause of action for financial elder abuse because Plaintiff ANTONIA RIVAS (“Rivas”) was not a resident of the State of California at the time of any alleged financial elder abuse.
In Opposition, Plaintiffs argue that Rivas is a protected elder under the Elder Abuse Act because she was 65 years old and residing in California at the time Defendants purportedly used undue influence to lure her out of California and into Mexico in order to fraudulently transfer the Subject Property to Defendants.
“The Elder Abuse Act makes certain enhanced remedies available to a plaintiff who proves abuse of an elder, i.e. a ‘person residing in this state, 65 years of age or older.’” (Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396, 403-404; Welf. & Inst. Code §15610.27.) In order to state a claim for financial elder abuse, a plaintiff must prove the following: (1) the plaintiff was “elderly” within the meaning of the Elder Abuse Act; (2) the defendant took or retained the plaintiff’s property with the intent to defraud the plaintiff, for a wrongful use, or by undue influence; (3) the plaintiff was harmed; and (4) the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm. (Knox v. Dean (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 417.)
Defendants proffer evidence to show that Plaintiff Rivas left the United States in August 2009, still resides in Mexico to this date, and has only returned to the United States once on a temporary visa. (SS No. 4; DiGiuseppe Decl., Ex. 4.) This action was not filed until May 25, 2017. Defendants also submit evidence to show that any rent that was purportedly fraudulently taken from Rivas was not taken until after Rivas moved to Mexico. It is undisputed that the alleged forged deed was executed in 2016, and it is undisputed that Rivas currently resides in Rosarito, Baja Mexico. (SS No. 1.)
To rebut Defendants’ evidence, Plaintiffs submit evidence to show that on August 8, 2009, Rivas turned 65 years old, and was still living in California on the Subject Property. It was not until October 2009 that she moved to Mexico. (Rivas Decl., ¶5.) Rivas declares Defendant JOSE GONZALEZ “manipulated [her] into leaving [her] home in California where [she] had lived for 40 years…to move alone to central Mexico…. Jose was well aware that if [she] crossed the border into Mexico, that [she] could not return to California due to [her] immigration status.” (Id. at ¶4.) Defendant JOSE GONZALEZ began fraudulently collecting rent in September 2009. (Id at ¶5.)
Based on the evidence presented in Opposition, Plaintiffs have raised triable issues of fact as to whether ANTONIA RIVAS resided in California at the time the purported financial elder abuse began to take place/was taking place. There is a triable issue of material fact as to when the purported fraudulent transfer of money occurred, and there is a triable issue of material fact as to when the undue influence of ANTONIA RIVAS commenced. These factual determinations cannot be resolved via summary adjudication
The motion for summary adjudication of the sixth cause of action is denied.
Plaintiffs’ Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Stephen DiGiuseppe:
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases