This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/17/2019 at 01:06:47 (UTC).

MARIA JOAQUINA LOPEZ ET AL VS ISELA LOPEZ ETAL

Case Summary

On 02/06/2018 a Property - Other Real Property case was filed by MARIA JOAQUINA LOPEZ against ISELA LOPEZ ETAL in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1615

  • Filing Date:

    02/06/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

MARK C. KIM

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

MARIA JOAQUINA LOPEZ - INDIV

RODRIGO LOPEZ - INDIV.

INDIV MARIA JOAQUINA LOPEZ

INDIV. RODRIGO LOPEZ

Defendants and Plaintiffs

DOES 1 - 20 INC.

RODRIGO LOPEZ - INDIV.

ISELA LOPEZ - INDIV.

INDIV. ISELA LOPEZ

 

Court Documents

Civil Case Cover Sheet

2/6/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Other -

2/6/2018: Other -

Summons

2/6/2018: Summons

Complaint

2/6/2018: Complaint

Notice of Lis Pendens

2/27/2018: Notice of Lis Pendens

Notice of Lis Pendens

2/27/2018: Notice of Lis Pendens

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

3/5/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Legacy Document

6/4/2018: Legacy Document

Case Management Statement

6/19/2018: Case Management Statement

Substitution of Attorney

10/15/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

11/7/2018: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Ex Parte Application

2/28/2019: Ex Parte Application

Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

2/28/2019: Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

Minute Order

3/4/2019: Minute Order

Order

3/4/2019: Order

Substitution of Attorney

4/11/2019: Substitution of Attorney

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

7/16/2019: Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

7/16/2019: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

28 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/16/2019
  • Notice of Settlement; Filed by ISELA LOPEZ - INDIV. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by MARIA JOAQUINA LOPEZ - INDIV (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by RODRIGO LOPEZ - INDIV. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for Order Vacating Trial Date and Setting New Trial Date) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for Order Vacating Trial Date...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2019
  • Order ([Proposed] Order Vacating Trial Date and Setting New Trial Date); Filed by MARIA JOAQUINA LOPEZ - INDIV (Plaintiff); RODRIGO LOPEZ - INDIV. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (Joint Ex Parte Application for Order Vacating Trial Date and Setting New Trial Date); Filed by MARIA JOAQUINA LOPEZ - INDIV (Plaintiff); RODRIGO LOPEZ - INDIV. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • Stipulation - No Order (Stipulation to Vacate Trial Date and Set New Date); Filed by MARIA JOAQUINA LOPEZ - INDIV (Plaintiff); RODRIGO LOPEZ - INDIV. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
25 More Docket Entries
  • 02/27/2018
  • Notice of Lis Pendens; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • Notice of Lis Pendens; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • Notice of Lis Pendens; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2018
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by MARIA JOAQUINA LOPEZ - INDIV (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by MARIA JOAQUINA LOPEZ - INDIV (Plaintiff); RODRIGO LOPEZ - INDIV. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • Other - (Order To Show Cause Hearing)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: NC061615    Hearing Date: November 19, 2019    Dept: S27

Plaintiffs Maria de Lopez and Rodrigo Lopez, acting in propria persona moves the court to reconsider the court’s denial of her previous motion for reconsideration on August 2, 2019.

The relief Plaintiff seeks is vacating a judgment pursuant to a settlement agreement of June 27, 2019. At that time all parties were represented by counsel. Plaintiffs’ counsel subsequently withdrew by noticed motion.

Plaintiffs acknowledge that their initial motion for reconsideration was denied on August 3, 2019. That was an ex parte motion, and the court invited Plaintiffs to file a noticed motion.

Motions for reconsideration are governed by CCP §1008 and its requirements are jurisdictional – i.e. the court cannot grant relief unless the statutory requirements are met. This is to prevent successive motions on the same issue unless there are either new facts which could not have been presented earlier or a change in law. CCP §1008:

“(a) When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.

(b) A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it shall be shown by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. For a failure to comply with this subdivision, any order made on a subsequent application may be revoked or set aside on ex parte motion.

(c) If a court at any time determines that there has been a change of law that warrants it to reconsider a prior order it entered, it may do so on its own motion and enter a different order.

(d) A violation of this section may be punished as a contempt and with sanctions as allowed by Section 128.7. In addition, an order made contrary to this section may be revoked by the judge or commissioner who made it or vacated by a judge of the court in which the action or proceeding is pending.

(e) This section specifies the court’s jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions and applies to all applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous motion, whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or final. No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.” [Emphasis Added]

There are several reasons why relief cannot be granted:

1. The court cannot “vacate judgment” because no judgment has been entered. A notice of settlement was filed, but no party has submitted a proposed judgment and requested its entry.

2. The court cannot vacate a settlement agreement under these circumstances. A settlement is a private agreement between the parties – a contract. If Isela Lopez seeks to enforce the settlement Plaintiffs could oppose, but the court has no power to void the settlement agreement.

3. The motion does not present new facts or law as required by CCP §1008. Technically, there is no evidence before the court at all. Although Rodrigo Lopez purports to submit his declaration, it is not subscribed under penalty of perjury. Hence there is no evidence of fraud, unjust influence, forgery or concealment. All parties had attorneys who subscribed to the settlement. Plaintiffs do not address this fact.

Even if the court were to deem this an original motion and not a renewed motion, the burdens of proof and persuasion have not been met.

The motion is denied. The court on its own motion sets an Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal for December 19, 2019.