Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/05/2019 at 10:52:03 (UTC).

HABITAT EAST HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. VS. HYUN JIN HWANG, ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/28/2017 HABITAT EAST HOMEOWNERS ASSOC filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against HYUN JIN HWANG. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Glendale Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RALPH C. HOFER. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6512

  • Filing Date:

    03/28/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Glendale Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

RALPH C. HOFER

 

Party Details

Defendants

HONG HYUN SUN AN INDIVIDUAL

CHANG HYO KUN AN INDIVIDUAL

BAE PYUNG H. AN INDIVIDUAL

KIM CHRISTINE AN INDIVIDUAL

CHO SUNG SUK AN INDIVIDUAL

CHO NAM JIK AN INDIVIDUAL

CHUNG KO H. AN INDIVIDUAL

CHUN KI CHUL AN INDIVIDUAL

HAN MI HYE AN INDIVIDUAL

PARK JAE RYUNG AN INDIVIDUAL

BAE KI YOUNG AN INDIVIDUAL

SEO MYUNG SEOK AN INDIVIDUAL

SOO HEE AN INDIVIDUAL

YI PYUNG HWA AN INDIVIDUAL

SEO CHRISTINE AN INDIVIDUAL

LIM UI KYUN AN INDIVIDUAL

AHN SONG HYUN AN INDIVIDUAL

KIM HAE B. AN INDIVIDUAL

BYUN TAE SIK AN INDIVIDUAL

CHOI KAP SIL AN INDIVIDUAL

110 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Other Attorneys

SWEDELSON & GOTTLIEB

 

Court Documents

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

2/20/2018: DEFAULT JUDGMENT

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/09/2018
  • Request (FOR CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 02/20/2018- 8 PAGES ); Filed by Interested Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2018
  • Request; Filed by Interested Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2018
  • Writ-Other; Filed by Creditor

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2018
  • Writ-Other (MEMORANDUM OF COST IN SUPPORT OF ITEMS #12 AND #16 ON WRIT OF EXECUTION IS REQUIRED. ); Filed by Attorney for Creditor

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • Writ-Other (FILING FEE REQUIRED ); Filed by Attorney for Creditor

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • Writ-Other; Filed by Creditor

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2018
  • Memorandum of Costs (POSTJUDGMENT COSTS: $25.00 ACCRUED INTEREST: $ 613.30 ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2018
  • Memorandum of Costs; Filed by Habitat East Homeowners Association (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2018
  • Notice of Entry of Judgment; Filed by Habitat East Homeowners Association (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2018
  • Notice of Entry of Judgment (OR ORDER ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
31 More Docket Entries
  • 10/12/2017
  • Miscellaneous-Other (RECEIPT ONLY: RECORDED DOCUMENT FROM THE LOS ANGELES REGISTRAR-RECORDER ); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2017
  • Notice (OF ACTION PENDING (LIS PENDENS) PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION 405.20 ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department D; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Matter continued) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2017
  • at 08:30 am in Department NCGD, Ralph C. Hofer, Presiding; Conference-Case Management (2) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SERVICEPURSUANT TO RULE 3.110(b) OF THECALIFONIA RULES OF COURT; 3) ORDERTO SHOW CAUSE RE: SANCTIONSPURSUANT TO RULE 3.110(f) CRC;) - Matter continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department D; (Order to Show Cause; Order Made) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2017
  • at 08:30 am in Department NCD, Ralph C. Hofer, Presiding; Order to Show Cause - Order Made

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2017
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2017
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2017
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2017
  • Summons Filed

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC066512    Hearing Date: April 23, 2021    Dept: D

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 14

Date: 4/23/2021

Case No: EC 066512 Trial Date: None Set

Case Name: Habitat East Homeowners Association v. Hwang, et al.

MOTION TO INTERVENE AND EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS

Moving Party: Third Party Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for the

Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust, etc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Habitat East Homeowners Association

RELIEF REQUESTED:

To intervene in this case for the purpose of expunging the Notice of Action Pending recorded on October 11, 2017.

FACTUAL and PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff Habitat East Homeowners Association (“the Association”) alleges that defendants are purported record or legal owners of a unit of real property in Burbank, and that dating back to May of 2008, after an assessment lien was recorded against the property in favor of plaintiff, multiple transfers of the property have occurred, wherein there are or have been at least 65 purported owners.

The Association seeks to enforce the recorded CC&Rs applicable to the Development in which the subject property is located, and specifically to foreclose on the assessment lien which was created as a result of the nonpayment of assessments.

The complaint alleges that the lien encumbering the property secures assessment, late charges, interest, costs and attorney fees in an amount of at least $80,228.56 as of the filing of the complaint, with assessments, late charges and interest continuing to accrue.

The file shows that on December 27, 2017, plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default, and the default of defendants was entered as requested the same date.

On February 20, 2018, Default Judgment was entered, with plaintiff to have judgment entered in its favor against defendants that all amounts listed in the judgment are secured by the assessment lien recorded on January 14, 2008, for a total of $112,009.15. The subject property was ordered to be sold in the manner prescribed by law, with the proceeds to be paid to plaintiff in the sum due, and any surplus funds to be paid in accordance with the priority set forth in CCP section 701.810. The judgment indicates that pursuant to CCP section 729.035, the sale shall be subject to a 90-day right of redemption.

On February 19, 2021, the court heard a motion to be relieved as counsel filed by counsel for plaintiff the Association. The motion was granted, effective upon the filig of the proof of service of the signed order upon the client. There is no proof of service yet in the file.

ANALYSIS:

Third party Deutsche Bank National Trust Company seeks an order intervening in this case for the limited purpose of expunging the lis pendens clouding title to the subject property. Moving party argues that counsel for plaintiff in this case has failed to withdraw the lis pendens after default judgment was issued in this case, and has not responded to requests for a voluntary release and withdrawal. Deutsche Bank indicates it is the holder of the beneficial interest in a deed of trust secured by the subject property. [RFJN, Exs. 1-3]. Deutsche Bank argues that due to the lis pendens, it is unable to pursue non-judicial foreclosure of the subject property.

As an initial matter, this motion was originally scheduled to be heard prior to the motion of plaintiff’s counsel to be relieved as attorney of record, and the opposition argues that this motion should be postponed pending a determination of that motion. As noted above, the motion to be relieved has since been heard, and granted. However, counsel for plaintiff has not been formally relieved as attorney of record, as no proof of service of the signed order upon the client has yet been filed with the court. The opposition was filed by counsel for plaintiff before the motion to be relieved was heard and granted.

This leaves the matter in a position where counsel has not been formerly relieved, and, if proof of service were to be filed prior to the hearing, the Association would be operating without current counsel, and it may not represent itself in this matter. This will be discussed at the hearing, as the circumstances may warrant a continuance of this matter until the matter of who is representing plaintiff can be sorted out.

Relief is sough under CCP § 387, which provides, in pertinent part:

“(b) An intervention takes place when a nonparty, deemed an intervenor, becomes a party to an action or proceeding between other persons by doing any of the following:

(1) Joining a plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the complaint.

(2) Uniting with a defendant in resisting the claims of a plaintiff.

(3) Demanding anything adverse to both a plaintiff and a defendant.

(c) A nonparty shall petition the court for leave to intervene by noticed motion or ex parte application. The petition shall include a copy of the proposed complaint in intervention or answer in intervention and set forth the grounds upon which intervention rests.

(d)(1) The court shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if either of the following conditions is satisfied:

(A) A provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene.

(B) The person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede that person's ability to protect that interest, unless that person's interest is adequately represented by one or more of the existing parties.”

The moving papers indicate that Deutsche Bank is entitled to intervene because it claims an interest relating to the property so that the disposition of the action may impair or impede its ability to protect that interest.

The motion does not include a copy of a proposed complaint in intervention, and the motion is denied on this ground.

The motion arguably establishes that Deutsche Bank has an interest in the subject property pursuant to assignments of a deed of trust secured by the subject property. [Mintah-Boamah Decl., paras. 2-10, RFJN, Exs. 1-3].

There is no evidentiary showing that the disposition of this action may impair or impede the moving party’s ability to protect an interest in the property. The motion argues that the lis pendens is preventing Deutsche Bank from conducting a non-judicial foreclosure of the property. However, there is no evidence presented that suggests that there is any basis for this party to be pursuing a non-judicial foreclosure. There is no indication that any event has occurred which would trigger moving party’s right to pursue non-judicial foreclosure. While the motion argues that the burden to establish the appropriateness of the lis pendens is on plaintiff here, the party opposing the motion, the burden to establish the entitlement to an order permitting intervention remains on the moving party.

Moving party has failed to sufficiently establish that one of the necessary conditions to give rise to an order permitting intervention has occurred, and the motion to intervene is denied.

As moving party has failed to sufficiently move to intervene, the court will not consider the motion to the extent it seeks an order expunging lis pendens.

RULING:

Motion to Intervene and for Expungement of Lis Pendens Pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section 405.30 by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for the Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-11, Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-11 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The motion does not comply with CCP § 387, as it does not include a copy of a proposed complaint in intervention, does not clearly set forth the grounds upon which intervention rests, and, to the extent the argument is that the expungement statutes provide a right to intervene, the motion has failed to establish by admissible evidence that the disposition of this action may impair or impede the moving party’s ability to protect an interest in the property.

The Court will hear argument concerning the status of representation of plaintiff. The Court notes that no proof of service showing service of the order granting counsel’s motion to be relieved has yet been filed, so that counsel has not been formally relieved. The Court will hear from the parties regarding the current status of plaintiff with respect to the retention of counsel.

GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO PROMOTE APPROPRIATE SOCIAL DISTANCING, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

Please make arrangements in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org, and scheduling a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers an audio-only appearance option at a current cost of $15.00 and a video appearance option at a cost of $23.00. Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear, unless they have obtained advance permission of the Court. Anyone who appears in person for the hearing will be required to comply with strict social distancing measures, including, but not limited to, assigned seating, capacity limitations in the courtroom, designated waiting areas, and strictly enforced spacing in line to communicate with court staff. If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.