On 03/20/2018 JEANNETTE GOULD filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against LENDERS T D SERVICE, INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are OTHER DISTRICT JUDGE, LAURA A. MATZ and CURTIS A. KIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
OTHER DISTRICT JUDGE
LAURA A. MATZ
CURTIS A. KIN
GRAY JEANNETTE GOULD
GOULD AKA JEANNETTE GOULD GRAY AN UNMARRIED WOMAN JEANNETTE
WALLER ALICIA M.
GUMBINER ELYSE PERLMUTTER
BENNETT GENE MICHAEL
GUMBINER FAMILY TRUST
LENDERS T.D.SERVICE INC.
FIRST AMERICAN MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS LLC
GUMBINER ERIC PERLMUTTER
WALLER WIFE TRUSTEE OF GUMBINER FAMILY TRUST VICTORIA
WALLER HUSBAND TRUSTEE OF GUMBINER FAMILY TRUST HERMAN
WALLER A SINGLE WOMAN ALICIA M.
GUMBINER A SINGLE WOMAN ELYSE PERLMUTTER
GUMBINER A SINGLE MAN ERIC PERLMUTTER
GRAY JEANNETTE GOULD
FRAZEE LAW GROUP
CHRISP JESSE BURL
FINCH BRENT MICHAEL
11/4/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1
11/16/2020: Brief - DEFENDANTS' TRIAL BRIEF FOR PHASE 1
11/16/2020: Brief - BRIEF TRIAL
9/15/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE)
2/26/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF FEBRUARY 2...)
11/27/2019: Objection - OBJECTION OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE - MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS
11/12/2019: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
10/9/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF ROSEANN FRAZEE RE DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION
4/25/2019: Case Management Statement
4/15/2019: Case Management Statement
2/19/2019: Other - - Other - Third Amended Complaint
3/20/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Complaint filed-Summons Issued
7/9/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Opposition
7/16/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Reply Brief
8/6/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-08-06 00:00:00
8/17/2018: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
8/10/2018: Complaint -
7/16/2018: Reply -
Hearing12/04/2020 at 13:30 PM in Department E at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Non-Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing12/02/2020 at 11:00 AM in Department E at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
DocketMotion in Limine (REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS? MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE UNFOUNDED OBJECTIONS TO TESTIMONY FROM ATTORNEY, TYSON TAKEUCHI); Filed by Gene Michael Bennett d/b/a Emerald Financial Erroneously Sued As GENE MICHAEL BENNETT (Defendant); EMERALD FINANCIAL (Defendant); GUMBINER FAMILY TRUST (Defendant) et al.Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 2:00 PM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketBrief (Trial); Filed by JEANNETTE GOULD aka JEANNETTE GOULD GRAY, an unmarried woman (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDefendants' Trial Brief for Phase 1; Filed by Gene Michael Bennett d/b/a Emerald Financial Erroneously Sued As GENE MICHAEL BENNETT (Defendant); EMERALD FINANCIAL (Defendant); GUMBINER FAMILY TRUST (Defendant) et al.Read MoreRead Less
DocketReply (to Motion In Limine No. 1); Filed by Gene Michael Bennett d/b/a Emerald Financial Erroneously Sued As GENE MICHAEL BENNETT (Defendant); EMERALD FINANCIAL (Defendant); GUMBINER FAMILY TRUST (Defendant) et al.Read MoreRead Less
DocketOpposition (to Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 1); Filed by JEANNETTE GOULD aka JEANNETTE GOULD GRAY, an unmarried woman (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial ((1 day)) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice (OF PENDENCY OF ACTION ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketAmended Complaint; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover SheetRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil CaseRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice (Of Order to Show Cause Re Failure to Comply with Trial Court Delay Reduction Act)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons FiledRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons IssuedRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: EC067775 Hearing Date: June 25, 2020 Dept: E
[CCP §430.10 et. seq.]
Date: 6/25/20 (10:00 AM)
Case: Jeanette Gould v. Lenders T.D. Service, Inc., et al. (EC 067775)
Defendants’ Demurrer to Plaintiff Jeanette Gould’s Fourth Amended Complaint (4th Amend. Compl.”) is OVERRULED.
Principally, like the previously heard Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Third Amended Complaint, defendants contend the first, second, and third causes of action asserted in the Fourth Amended Complaint are time-barred. It is undisputed that the subject Deed of Trust (“DOT”) for 249 Mountain View Street was recorded in December 2007, whereas plaintiff did not file the instant action until February 27, 2018, well beyond any applicable statute of limitations for the asserted causes of action concerning the DOT. In the Fourth Amended Complaint, however, plaintiff has sufficiently pled allegations to avail herself of the so-called “discovery rule.” (See Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 808.)
Here, the Fourth Amended Complaint alleges plaintiff was not able to discover the DOT earlier: because she was never aware of it (as her signature on it had been forged); because she never received any loan proceeds; and because she apparently believed her payments toward the loan secured by the DOT were for her original mortgage. (4th Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 13-19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 30.) Plaintiff may ultimately need to prove somehow that her notarized signature on the 2007 DOT is not hers in order to avoid the statute of limitations, but, at the pleading stage, this Court must accept all allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences from those facts in favor of plaintiff. (Kruss v. Booth (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 699, 713.)
Likewise, even upon taking judicial notice of the 2010 bankruptcy filing defendants submitted in support of the instant demurrer (and previously presented in support of the Motion of Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Third Amended Complaint), the bankruptcy filing does not necessarily establish plaintiff had notice of the subject DOT in 2010 (which would also render this action untimely), in light of the allegations of the Fourth Amended Complaint. To be sure, the bankruptcy filing clearly states in Schedule D (Creditors Holding Secured Claims) that “Marshall Gumbiner” holds a claim for $215,000 secured by 249 Mountain View Street. (RJN, Ex. A, p. 8 of 28.) That same filing contains a signed declaration, dated September 17, 2010, under penalty of perjury, purportedly by Jeanette Gould, stating that “I have read and understood” the filing and that “the information in the Filed Document is true, correct, and complete.” (RJN, Ex. A, p. 28 of 28.) That same page with the declaration of Jeanette Gould also contains a declaration from the attorney (Tyson Takeuchi) for the signing party (i.e., Jeanette Gould) stating, under penalty of perjury, that the signing party actually signed the declaration. (RJN, Ex. A, p. 28 of 28.) On its face, the bankruptcy filing would appear to establish that, at least as of September 17, 2010, plaintiff had knowledge of (or, at the very least, should have been on notice of) the DOT for $215,000 of which she now complains.
However, the Fourth Amended Complaint newly alleges that, in 2009 or 2010, knowing that the bank was going to foreclose on another property of hers, plaintiff and her son Kenneth went to see a bankruptcy attorney. Notably, plaintiff alleges that “she never read nor signed anything at the attorney’s office having turned all the operations over to Kenneth.” (4th Amend. Compl. ¶ 14.) Nor, according to this new allegation, was the discussion at the attorney’s office “ever made about the 249 Mountain View Street Property.” (4th Amend. Compl. ¶ 14.) Those allegations, along with allegations that plaintiff later learned in 2019 that Kenneth had forged plaintiff’s name on “many documents” (including bank documents for the account into which the loaned funds secured by the DOT went), are sufficient at the demurrer stage to support plaintiff’s invocation of the discovery rule, because such allegations, if true, are sufficient to establish the reasonable inference that plaintiff did not sign the 2010 bankruptcy filing, that plaintiff did not know of its contents, and that her son Kenneth may have forged plaintiff’s name on it. Indeed, this version of events is consistent with the Fourth Amended Complaint’s aforementioned allegations that Kenneth forged plaintiff’s name on the DOT and kept for himself the accompanying loan proceedings unbeknownst to plaintiff.
In crediting the allegations of the Fourth Amended Complaint—as it must at this stage of the proceedings—the Court does not find, as defendants argue, that the sham pleading doctrine applies here. (See State ex rel. Metz v. CCC Info. Servs., Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 402, 412 [“[U]nder the sham pleading doctrine, plaintiffs are precluded from amending complaints to omit harmful allegations, without explanation, from previous complaints to avoid attacks raised in demurrers or motions for summary judgment”].) Although calling the Fourth Amended Complaint a sham pleading, defendants do not adequately explain what facts were omitted from the newest pleading. Nor is it apparent how the Fourth Amended Complaint contradicts the Third Amended Complaint. In both pleadings, plaintiff alleges her signature was forged on the DOT. In the Third Amended Complaint, plaintiff does not allege who forged the Deed of Trust. In the Fourth Amended Complaint, plaintiff suggests Kenneth is responsible for the forgery. As for the 2010 bankruptcy filing, plaintiff did not necessarily have any reason or occasion to comment on it in the Third Amended Complaint, because it was not made part of this litigation until defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. In the Fourth Amended Complaint, plaintiff’s allegations concerning the 2010 bankruptcy do not contradict anything in the prior complaint.
Finally, with respect to the third cause of action for Quiet Title, defendants make the additional argument that such claim cannot stand because plaintiff has not paid the money she borrowed. (Demurrer at 16.) This argument, however, presumes that the loan and DOT are valid. While that ultimately may be the case, plaintiff’s theory as alleged in the Fourth Amended Complaint is that the loan was invalid, the DOT was forged, and she never received any loan funds that she must now tender. Under that theory, failure to repay the loan would not seem to defeat the claim for Quiet Title. (See Glaski v. Bank of America (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1100.)
For all of the foregoing reasons, defendants’ Demurrer to the Fourth Amended Complaint is OVERRULED.
Case Number: EC067775 Hearing Date: December 06, 2019 Dept: E
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
[CCP § 438]
Case: Jeanette Gould v. Lenders T.D. Service, Inc., et al. (EC 067775)
Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.
The bankruptcy records submitted by defendants, and not formally objected to by plaintiff, indicate plaintiff had notice of the subject Deed of Trust in September of 2010, thereby rendering plaintiff’s filing of this action beyond any applicable statute of limitations. None of the allegations of the operative complaint or judicially noticed documents address or explain how or why plaintiff might avail herself of the discovery rule to delay accrual of her first, second, and third causes of action in order to render any of them timely.
In granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court has SUSTAINED Defendants’ Objection to Evidence Presented in Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Court has, however, considered such evidence as a proffer in connection with whether further leave to amend will be granted. In accordance with CCP § 438(h)(2), the Court grants thirty (30) days leave to amend the first through third causes of action only, so that plaintiff may allege, if possible, facts sufficient to explain the delay in discovery of such causes of action.
The Court will hear argument with respect to whether the fourth cause of action for calendar preference should be stricken from the pleading on the Court’s own motion. Calendar preference is not a cause of action. Rather, a party to a civil action who is over 70 years of age may petition the Court for preference, which may be obtained upon the Court making specified findings. (See CCP § 36(a).)