This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/24/2019 at 04:01:19 (UTC).

SHEILA HAWKINS VS VINCENT BRANTLEY

Case Summary

On 10/18/2017 SHEILA HAWKINS filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against VINCENT BRANTLEY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0168

  • Filing Date:

    10/18/2017

  • 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

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

HAWKINS SHEILA

Defendants and Respondents

BRANTLET VINCENT

DOES 1 TO 50

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

WILLOUGHBY W. ANTHONY ESQ.

WILLOUGHBY & ASSOCIATES

WILLOUGHBY ANTHONY

Defendant Attorney

DICKENS HAROLD WINFRED III

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

1/12/2018: Minute Order

DEFENDANT VINCENT BRANTLEY'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND QUIET TITLE

2/1/2018: DEFENDANT VINCENT BRANTLEY'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND QUIET TITLE

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

2/6/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Unknown

2/27/2018: Unknown

Unknown

3/12/2018: Unknown

Unknown

3/13/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

3/13/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

4/4/2018: Unknown

NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL OF RECORD

4/17/2018: NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL OF RECORD

Minute Order

1/18/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

2/14/2019: Minute Order

Unknown

4/12/2019: Unknown

Minute Order

4/12/2019: Minute Order

Unknown

1/8/2018: Unknown

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. DECLARATORY RELIEF (PROPERTY) 2. QUIET TITLE

12/21/2017: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. DECLARATORY RELIEF (PROPERTY) 2. QUIET TITLE

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

11/1/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS, COMPLAINT, CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET, CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM, NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT, AND NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS

10/19/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS, COMPLAINT, CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET, CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM, NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT, AND NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS

SUMMONS

10/18/2017: SUMMONS

10 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/12/2019
  • at 08:00 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order) of 04/12/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Post-Mediation Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference; Post-Mediation Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (to Continue Trial and Related Dates); Filed by Sheila Hawkins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Post-Mediation Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Post-Mediation Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
26 More Docket Entries
  • 01/08/2018
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by Sheila Hawkins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2017
  • First Amended Complaint; Filed by Sheila Hawkins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2017
  • FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. DECLARATORY RELIEF (PROPERTY) 2. QUIET TITLE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS, COMPLAINT, CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET, CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM, NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT, AND NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Sheila Hawkins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Sheila Hawkins (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. DECLARATORY RELIEF; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/18/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC680168    Hearing Date: March 11, 2020    Dept: 47

Sheila Hawkins v. Vincent Brantley

 

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST VINCIENT [SIC] BRANTLEY AND ATTORNEY HAROLD W. DICKENS III

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Sheila Hawkins

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Vincent Brantley, Trustee of the Fydra Brantley Revocable Trust; and Harold W. Dickens, Attorney in Pro Per

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff seeks to quiet title based upon adverse possession. Defendant is her brother, trustee of their mother’s revocable trust.

Plaintiff moves for sanctions against Defendant Vincent Brantley and his attorney Harold W. Dickens, III.

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Court has read and considered all pleadings filed in connection to this matter. Suffice it to state, this Court has grave concerns about the actions of all counsel and some of the parties.

Counsel are to PERSONALLY APPEAR. No Court Call appearances will be allowed to appear.

Attorney Dickens is to bring sufficient proof that he actually emailed his personal opposition papers to Plaintiff’s counsel, as claimed in his unsigned Proof of Service, and whether email service has been allowed and/or ordered in this case, under the applicable laws. If there is a lack of such proof of service and/or lack of legal authority for email service, this Court will either allow, if requested by Plaintiff, a short continuance of this hearing, so to give Plaintiff an opportunity to respond to the opposition filed by Harold W. Dickens III, or in the alternative, striking and disregarding Mr. Dickens’ opposition.

Otherwise, the Court will hear oral argument of the issues presented by the pending motion at the currently-scheduled hearing.

DISCUSSION:

Motion for Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks sanctions pursuant to CCP § 128.7 on the grounds that Defendant and his attorney have “perpetrated a fraud on the Court and Plaintiff by claiming to represent Ms. Fydra Brantley personally and filing documents purporting to be signed by Ms. Fydra Brantley.” (Notice, at p. 2.)

In her most-recent reply, Plaintiff indicates that the opposition filed by Harold W. Dickens III was never served on her. This is borne out by the inadequate “Proof of Service” attached to this opposition, which is unsigned and purports to have been executed on February 27, 2020, even though the specific portion of the proof of service that explains how the document was served states that it was emailed on December 3, 2019. [Which this Court assumes is an error.]

Given that the opposition filed by Harold W. Dickens III is replete with accusations against Plaintiff’s counsel, and given that it is far more detailed than the opposition filed by Defendant, Plaintiff may be entitled to an opportunity to reply to the substance of the Dickens opposition, if it is to be considered by this Court.

Otherwise, at the hearing the Plaintiff must more adequately explain how the sanctions order requested as to the Defendant Vincent Brantley is authorized in view of CCP §§ 128.7 (d)(1) and/or 128.7 (g).

As to the sanctions requested against either Defendant and/or Attorney Dickens, the Plaintiff must more adequately explain whether Plaintiff has fully complied with CCP §§ 128.7 (c)(1) – To wit, what specific “paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial” should have been “withdrawn or appropriately corrected” during the 21 day safe-harbor period. Additionally, whether the Plaintiff has adequately “described the specific conduct alleged to have violated subdivision (b).”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2020 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court