THEODORE MORGA VS. SABRINA RODRIGUEZ

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****6039 Hearing Date: February 10, 2022 Dept: C

MORGA v. RODRIGUEZ

CASE NO.: ****6039

HEARING: 02/10/22

#4

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant SABRINA RODRIGUEZ’s unopposed Motion for Appointment of Elisor is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give Notice.

No Opposition filed as of February 8, 2022.

“A court typically appoints an elisor to sign documents on behalf of a recalcitrant party in order to effectuate its judgments or orders, where the party refuses to execute such documents.” (Blueberry Properties, LLC v. Chow (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1020.)

The Judgement entered on August 12, 2020 states that “[t]he subject Grant Deed dated February 26, 2016 and recorded on April 12, 2016 in Los Angeles County as Document No. 20160408081 is hereby extinguished and canceled of record forever and a new deed shall be recorded as to reflect Theodore Morga and Sabrina Rodriguez as Tenants in Common….” (Judgment 4.) This Motion is unopposed, and it is undisputed that Plaintiff Morga refuses to execute a new Grant Deed.

The Motion for Appointment of an Elisor to effectuate the Judgment is GRANTED.

Procedures for Obtaining Clerk’s Signature on Documents Per Court Order:

The following instructions were obtained from lacourt.org – Procedures for Obtaining Clerk’s Signature on Documents Per Court Order:

When the court orders the Clerk of the Court to execute documents on behalf of a party, the signing of those documents is performed at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. Please direct all documents for the Clerk’s signature to one of the Family Law Managers, at 111 Hill Street, Room 426, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

When submitting documents for signature, they must be accompanied by the following:

The original court order if the order has not been imaged. We cannot accept certified or conformed copies of the order. If you are submitting documents without a physical court order, please provide a case number and the date of the order.

The order must name each document to be signed. A deed must state the type of deed (Grant Deed, Interspousal Transfer Deed, etc.) and include the address and legal description. Escrow documents must be listed separately (i.e. Escrow Instructions dated…., Disclosure regarding Real Estate Agency Relationship, Hazards Report, etc.) In lieu of naming each document, copies of the document may be attached to the order as exhibits. We cannot sign an order that is vague, with wording such as “sign any and all documents…”

We cannot sign an order that is contingent upon a party not performing their duty, i.e. “if respondent does not sign, then the clerk of the court is ordered to sign.” The order must be specific that the clerk sign the document.

The attorney or litigant must submit a check for fees, payable to the Los Angeles Superior Court. The current fee is $15.00 per signature or initial (GC70629). If any of the documents require notarization, an additional $10.00 is needed for each notarization. The entire fee may be paid on one check.

We make every effort to complete the signings within 24 hours of receipt. If the order and documents are sent form another court location, they could take a week to be received. The submitting party will be notified once it is completed.

If you have any questions, please contact a manager at 213-633-0629 or 213-633-0630.

Case Number: ****6039    Hearing Date: July 02, 2020    Dept: SEC

MORGA v. RODRIGUEZ

CASE NO.: ****6039

HEARING: 07/02/2020

#8

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant/Cross-Complainant SABRINA RODRIGUEZ’s motion for summary judgment as to the Complaint is GRANTED. Defendant/Cross-Complainant SABRINA RODRIGUEZ’s motion for summary judgment as to the Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. CCP ; 437c.

Moving Party to give notice.

This action for breach of contract was filed by Plaintiff THEODORE MORGA on January 3, 2017.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant SABRINA RODRIGUEZ (“Defendant”) moves for summary judgment in her favor as to: (1) Plaintiff’s Complaint; and (2) Defendant’s Cross-Complaint.

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts one sole cause of action for breach of contract. Defendant’s Cross-Complaint asserts three causes of action for quiet title; declaratory relief; and partition.

A “deemed admitted” order establishes that a nonresponding party has responded to the propounding party’s requests for admissions by admitting the truth of all matters contained therein. (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 979.) Party admissions are given “an unusual deference in summary judgment proceedings. An admission is binding unless there is a credible explanation for the inconsistent positions taken by a party. [Citations.]” (FPI Development Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 396.) When an admission against a party’s own interest “becomes relevant to the determination, on motion for summary judgment, of whether or not there exist triable issues of fact between the parties, it is entitled to and should receive a kind of deference not normally accorded evidentiary allegations in affidavits.” (D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 22.)

In the case at bar, on October 11, 2018, this Court GRANTED Defendant’s unopposed Motion to Deem Matters in Requests for Admissions propounded on Plaintiff Admitted. Thus, Plaintiff has admitted that:

1. Defendant placed a down payment towards the purchase price of the 12032 South Circle Drive, Whittier, California 90601 property (“Subject Property”)

2. Defendant and Plaintiff jointly paid the mortgage, taxes, and insurance of the Subject Property.

3. Defendant owns 50% of the Subject Property in fee simple.

4. Defendant does not owe Plaintiff $21,000.00.

5. Plaintiff never transferred title of his Nissan 370Z to Defendant.

6. Defendant never used Plaintiff’s personal credit cards for her personal use.

7. Plaintiff and Defendant agreed that Defendant would later be added on title to the Subject Property.

Based on the deemed admissions, Plaintiff has no evidence in support of the required elements of his cause of action for breach of contract, or to rebut Defendant’s claims for quiet title, declaratory relief, and partition—these causes of action “have no merit” because the required elements cannot be established. (See CCP ;437c(f)(1).) As a matter of law, every required element of these causes of action have been negated, requiring that summary judgment be granted in favor of Defendant. (Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334.)

Plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of contract fails, and Defendant prevails on her claims for quiet title; declaratory relief; and partition. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Complaint is GRANTED, and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.