This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/21/2019 at 03:21:08 (UTC).

IN RE MATTER OF RUBEN REYNA JR VS MARIA ESTHER REYNA ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/29/2017 a Property - Other Real Property case was filed by IN RE MATTER OF RUBEN REYNA JR against MARIA ESTHER REYNA in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8413

  • Filing Date:

    12/29/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

REYNA JR. RUBEN

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 50

REYNA MARIA ESTHER

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

2/27/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

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

3/14/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR: 1. RESULTING TRUST 2. DECLARATORY RELIEF

4/27/2018: VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR: 1. RESULTING TRUST 2. DECLARATORY RELIEF

Unknown

5/21/2018: Unknown

Unknown

5/22/2018: Unknown

Proof of Personal Service

11/2/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Minute Order

1/14/2019: Minute Order

Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

1/15/2019: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

2/8/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice

2/14/2019: Notice

Proof of Service by Mail

2/14/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Exhibit List

2/20/2019: Exhibit List

Substitution of Attorney

2/20/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Substitution of Attorney

2/20/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Trial Brief

2/22/2019: Trial Brief

Opposition

2/22/2019: Opposition

Minute Order

2/25/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

3/5/2019: Minute Order

26 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/05/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 37; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Non-Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Final Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • Opposition (to Motion in Limine No. 1); Filed by Ruben Reyna Jr. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • Trial Brief; Filed by Ruben Reyna Jr. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Maria Esther Reyna (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • Exhibit List; Filed by Maria Esther Reyna (Defendant); Maria Esther Reyna (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • Trial Brief; Filed by Maria Esther Reyna (Defendant); Maria Esther Reyna (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • Motion in Limine (No. 2 To Preclude Evidence Regarding Any Alleged Agreement to Reimburse Plaintiff for His Labor Costs); Filed by Maria Esther Reyna (Defendant); Maria Esther Reyna (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
38 More Docket Entries
  • 03/14/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2018
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/29/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Ruben Reyna Jr. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/29/2017
  • VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PARTITION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/29/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC688413    Hearing Date: February 13, 2020    Dept: 37

HEARING DATE: January 9, 2020

CASE NUMBER: BC688413

CASE NAME: In Re Matter of Ruben Reyna Jr. v. Maria Esther Reyna, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Ruben Reyna Jr.

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Maria Esther Reyna, individually and as trustee of the Maria Esther Reyna Revocable Trust

TRIAL DATE: Complaint dismissed without prejudice October 7, 2019

PROOF OF SERVICE: OK

MOTION: Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and Vacate Judgment

OPPOSITION: Timely filed December 26, 2019

REPLY: No reply filed as of January 6, 2020

TENTATIVE: Plaintiffs’ motion to set aside dismissal and vacate judgment is GRANTED. Court to set an OSC re enforcement of settlement agreement under CCP section 664.6. Counsel for Maria Reyna to give notice.

Background

This is an action for partition of real property located at 243 South Dacotah Street, #A, B, C, Los Angeles, CA 90063 (“Subject Property”). Plaintiff, Ruben Reyna Jr. (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he took title with Defendant, Maria Esther Reyna (“Maria Reyna”) and non-party Ruben Reyna Sr. as joint tenants on or about July 22, 2009. Plaintiff alleges that he, Maria Reyna and Ruben Reyna Sr. all initially agreed that he would remodel the property and prepare them for renting out to tenants, and that the all three would split profits from the rental income equally after payment of mortgage and expenses. Plaintiff further alleges that after Ruben Reyna Sr. passed away, Maria Reyna began failing to comply with their agreement by failing to timely deposit the rental income, changing the locks on the property to prevent him from entering, removing Ruben Reyna Sr. from the property, and transferring her interest in the property to her separate trust.

Plaintiff’s Complaint contains one cause of action for partition. Plaintiff’s Complaint names as defendants Maria Reyna, individually, and as trustee of the Maria Esther Reyna Revocable Trust. (hereinafter, defendants will be referred to as “Maria Reyna.”)

On April 2, 2018, Maria Reyna filed a cross-complaint alleging two causes of action for: (1) imposition of resulting trust, and (2) declaratory relief. Maria Reyna’s cross-complaint alleges that she was the sole true owner of the Subject Property.

On March 5, 2019, the parties informed the court at the first day of non-jury trial that a settlement had been reached and that a Notice of Settlement would be filed shortly. As such, an Order to Show Cause regarding Dismissal After Settlement was scheduled for July 3, 2019.

On July 3, 2019, the parties attended the Order to Show Cause and requested a brief continuance on account of escrow on the property. Accordingly, the hearing was continued to August 26, 2019. On August 26, 2019, the Order to Show Cause hearing was again continued to October 7, 2019. The continuance was on the court’s own motion.

On October 7, 2019, the Order to Show Cause hearing was held, with no appearances for either party. There being no appearances, the court ordered the complaint dismissed without prejudice. The court’s minute order indicated that it would retain jurisdiction to enforce any and all terms of settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

Plaintiff now moves for an order vacating the October 7, 2019 dismissal and to place the matter back on the trial calendar. Maria Reyna opposes the motion.

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure, section 473, subdivision (b) provides for two distinct types of relief—commonly differentiated as “discretionary” and “mandatory”—from certain prior actions or proceedings in the trial court. (Luri v. Greenwald (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1124 (Luri).) “Under the discretionary relief provision, on a showing of ‘mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,’ the court has discretion to allow relief from a ‘judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against’ a party or his or her attorney.” (Ibid.)

“Under the mandatory relief provision, on the other hand, upon a showing by attorney declaration of ‘mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect,’ the court shall vacate any ‘resulting default judgment or dismissal entered.’ ” (Ibid., internal citations and quotation marks omitted, quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) “[A] mea culpa declaration by an attorney establishing that a default, default judgment, or dismissal was entered against his or her client as the result of attorney neglect deprives the trial court of discretion to deny relief, even without a showing that the neglect was excusable.” (Tackett v. City of Huntington Beach (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 60, 65 (Tackett).) Whenever relief is granted under the mandatory relief provision, the court must “direct the attorney to pay reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs to opposing counsel or parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)

Here, Plaintiff requests that October 7, 2019 dismissal without prejudice be set aside on the grounds that both Plaintiff and Maria Reyna were mistaken about the date of the final Order to Show Cause hearing and believed it to be October 10, 2019 rather than October 7. (see Declaration of Brian Miles in Support of Motion.) Plaintiff contends that but for Maria Reyna’s counsel providing notice that the Order to Show Cause hearing was on October 10, 2019, his counsel would have appeared on October 7, 2019 and the case would not have been dismissed. (Motion, 5-8.) Plaintiff submits his own declaration in support of this contention, as well as the declaration of his attorney, Brian C. Miles. Plaintiff also submits a copy of counsel for Maria Reyna’s Notice of Ruling, which erroneously indicated that the Order to Show Cause hearing was continued to October 10, 2019. (see Exhibit A to Motion.) Finally, Plaintiff also appears to contend that the dismissal must be set aside to allow this matter to “be disposed on its merits.” (Motion, 7.)

Maria Reyna opposes Plaintiff’s motion and contends generally that the motion constitutes Plaintiff’s incorrect belief that Maria Reyna was delaying completion of her settlement obligations. (Opposition, 3.) Maria Reyna contends that Plaintiff had been making repeated representations to her and to the court that the matter was settled and, as such, that Plaintiff should not now be entitled to set aside the dismissal and avoid further settlement obligations. (Opposition, 5.)

The court accepts Plaintiff’s statement that the failure to appear at the Order to Show Cause was due to mistake. If the parties had appeared it is unlikely the court would have dismissed the case

However, having vacated the trial date because of a settlement. The parties must complete the settlement and dismiss the case. The parties must be prepared to state a date for an Order to Show Cause hearing to enforce the settlement.

.