This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/13/2020 at 15:13:33 (UTC).

VINCENT V WATSON VS DORIS L HILL ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/05/2018 VINCENT filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against WATSON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MEL RED RECANA, HOLLY E. KENDIG and ELAINE LU. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6686

  • Filing Date:

    03/05/2018

  • 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 Judges

MEL RED RECANA

HOLLY E. KENDIG

ELAINE LU

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

WATSON VINCENT V.

HILL AN INDIVIDUAL DORIS

Defendants and Respondents

THE WATSON'S FAMILY LIVING TRUST

HILL DORIS L.

ALL PERSONS CLAIMING BY THROUGH OR UNDER

HILL DORIS LENA AS TRUSTEE

DORIS LENA AS TRUSTEE

HILL AS TRUSTEE DORIS LENA

WATSON AN INDIVIDUAL VINCENT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

SOBEL G. SCOTT ESQ.

DAVIS ERIC LEMARIO

Plaintiff and Defendant Attorneys

DAVIS ERIC LEMARIO

DAVIS ERIC L. ESQ.

DAVIS ERIC LEMARIO ESQ.

LARA ROBERTO LEMARIO ESQ.

SOBEL G. SCOTT

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

DAVIS ERIC L. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: WHY BC67862...)

10/21/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: WHY BC67862...)

Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT (1ST)

8/31/2020: Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT (1ST)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR LEA...)

8/31/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR LEA...)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF ERIC L. DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF HILL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

3/20/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF ERIC L. DAVIS IN SUPPORT OF HILL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFF VINCENT WATSON'S OPPOSITION TO HILL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

3/20/2020: Reply - REPLY TO PLAINTIFF VINCENT WATSON'S OPPOSITION TO HILL'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 07/02/2020

7/2/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 07/02/2020

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DEFENDANT DORIS HILLS'...) OF 07/14/2020

7/14/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DEFENDANT DORIS HILLS'...) OF 07/14/2020

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE MSJ

1/7/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE MSJ

Order - ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1/8/2020: Order - ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

12/5/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SET HEARING DATE FOR MOTIO...)

5/17/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SET HEARING DATE FOR MOTIO...)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

5/10/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE)

5/13/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE)

Order - ORDER PROPOSED ORDER FOR EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

5/13/2019: Order - ORDER PROPOSED ORDER FOR EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

Minute Order -

8/27/2018: Minute Order -

Minute Order -

7/19/2018: Minute Order -

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER STAYING UD ACTION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER CONSOLIDATING THE ACTIONS; ETC,

4/5/2018: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER STAYING UD ACTION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER CONSOLIDATING THE ACTIONS; ETC,

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

3/5/2018: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

58 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/05/2021
  • Hearing05/05/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • Hearing12/10/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (why BC678628 and BC696686 should not be consolidated for trial purposes only) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketAmended Complaint ( (2nd)); Filed by Vincent V. Watson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: why BC67862...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Continuance of TSC); Filed by Vincent V. Watson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2020
  • Docketat 10:25 AM in Department ; Court Order - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2020
  • DocketStipulation and Order (Re Re-Filing of FAC with Verification); Filed by Vincent V. Watson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
104 More Docket Entries
  • 03/05/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Vincent V. Watson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT TO QUIET TITLE AND FOR CANCELLATION OF WRITFEN INSTRUMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF RELATED CASE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2018
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Vincent Watson, an individual (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Vincent Watson, an individual (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • DocketNotice of Unlawful Detainer (Eviction) ((Vincent Watson, an individual)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • DocketNotice of Unlawful Detainer (Eviction) ((ALL OCCUPANTS)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Doris Hill, an individual (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC696686    Hearing Date: August 31, 2020    Dept: 26

IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT PHYSICAL DISTANCING AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THE COURT STRONGLY ENCOURAGES ALL COUNSEL AND ALL PARTIES TO APPEAR REMOTELY FOR NON-TRIAL AND NON-EVIDENTIARY MATTERS, INCLUDING THIS MOTION.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

VINCENT V. WATSON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DORIS L. HILL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC696686

(Related with BC678628)

Hearing Date: August 31, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint

Background

On March 5, 2018, Plaintiff Vincent Watson (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendant Doris Hill (“Defendant”), Doris Hill as trustee of the Watson’s Family Living Trust dated March 9, 2007, the Watson’s Family Living Trust dated March 9, 2007, and all other persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in this complaint, which is adverse to Plaintiff’s title or creates any cloud on Plaintiff’s title for (1) Quiet Title and (2) Cancellation of Instrument.

The Complaint alleges the following: Plaintiff’s grandfather Darnell C. Watson Sr. (“Darnell Sr.”) always intended to leave his home (“the subject property”) after his passing to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s cousin Keisha Ester. (Complaint ¶¶ 9-11.) Since Plaintiff’s childhood, Darnell Sr. and Plaintiff’s grandmother Willie Mae Watson promised that Plaintiff would inherit the subject property together with his cousin Keisha Ester (“Keisha”). (Complaint ¶ 9.) After Willie Mae Watson passed away in 2010, Darnell Sr. called a family meeting during which he confirmed his intent that Plaintiff and Keisha inherit his family home, the subject property. (Complaint ¶ 10.)

The Complaint further alleges: On March 10, 2011, Darnell Sr. amended and restated the Watson’s Family Trust (“the Trust”). (Id. at ¶ 19.) “By amending and restating the Trust on or about March 10, 2011, [Darnell Sr.] did not convey, deed, give or transfer [subject property] to the [Watson’s Family] Trust.” (Id. at ¶ 20.) “By amending and restating the [Watson’s Family] Trust on or about March 10, 2011, [Darnell Sr.] did not intend to convey, deed, give or transfer [subject property] to the [Watson’s Family] Trust.” (Id. at ¶ 21.) As Darnell Sr. did not convey or transfer the subject property to the Trust, the subject property was not and is not an asset of the Trust. (Id. at ¶ 18.)

“On or about March 10, 2011, [Defendant], as surviving trustee of [Darnell Sr.]'s Declaration of Trust dated March 9, 2007, the Trust, executed a Trust Quitclaim Deed granting plaintiff[’]s Property to [Defendant] as the Beneficiary of the Trust, and the Trust Transfer Grant Deed was recorded on June 27, 2011, in the Official Records of the Recorder's Office of Los Angeles County, California as Document Number 20110743173.” (Id. at ¶ 23.) “The form and content of the purported Trust Quitclaim Deed are set out in the instrument recorded as Document Number 20110743173 on June 27, 2011 [and] is in the possession of defendant HILL.” (Id. at ¶ 27.) “The purported Trust Quitclaim Deed purports to grant title to [the subject property] to Defendant HILL and is void or voidable against Plaintiff as [the subject property] is not property of the Trust and/or an asset of the Trust.” (Id. at ¶ 28.)

In April 2011, Darnell Sr. asked Plaintiff to move from Chicago to the subject property in Los Angeles in order that Plaintiff could care for Darnell Sr. (Id. at ¶ 12.) Darnell Sr. confirmed that if Plaintiff would relocate and care for Darnell Sr., Plaintiff would inherit the Property. Plaintiff agreed. (Id. at ¶ 12.) In May 2011, Darnell Sr. flew to Chicago to help Plaintiff pack up his belongings and drive back to Los Angeles. (Id. at ¶ 13.) Plaintiff remained on the subject property and took care of Darnell Sr. until Defendant removed Darnell Sr. from the subject property approximately two weeks before Darnell Sr. passed away on February 28, 2015. (Id. at ¶ 14.)

On May 17, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the summary judgment motion was continued twice, ultimately to July 14, 2020. (Minute Orders 3/20/20, 4/29/20.)

On June 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to amend the complaint. The court scheduled the hearing on this motion for August 31, 2020 at 8:30 am and ordered the moving party to give notice. (Minute Order 7/2/20.) On July 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed proof of service reflecting notice of the hearing date. Due to the filing of the instant motion for leave to amend the complaint, the court continued the hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment to September 23, 2020. (Minute Order 7/14/20.) On August 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration in support this motion for leave to amend. On August 18, 2020, Defendant filed an opposition.

Electronic Filing

As a preliminary matter, the Court reminds the parties that “[e]lectronic documents must by electronically filed in PDF, text searchable format when technologically feasible without impairment of the document’s image.” (First Amended General Order re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil, 5/3/19.) Any failure to comply with this aspect of the First Amended General Order in the future may result in the pleading at issue being stricken and the party being required to re-file the pleading in conformity with the First Amended General Order.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant requests that the court take judicial notice of (1) the complaint, (2) the proposed first amended complaint, and (3) the supplemental declaration filed on August 5, 2020 by Plaintiff.

As the court may take judicial notice of court records, (Evid. Code, § 452(c), (d)), Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted. Though the court may take judicial notice of the docket and filings within, the court may not take judicial notice of the truth of their contents. (See Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1375.)

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides that: “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms, as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”

Code of Civil Procedure § 576 provides that: “[a]ny judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.”

Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties, and therefore, courts have held that “there is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments.” (Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 296-97; see also Ventura v. ABM Industries, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 268) [“Trial courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial where the adverse party will not be prejudiced.”].)

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend must: (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered; and (2) state what allegations are proposed to be deleted from or added to the previous pleading and where such allegations are located. Rule 3.1324(b) requires a separate declaration that accompanies the motion, stating: “(1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier.”

Discussion

Proposed Amendments

Plaintiff seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) to add a third cause of action for breach of contract and a fourth cause of action for declaratory relief. Plaintiff’s attorney states that “[i]n the limited time I [counsel] had to do so, and with limited funds available, I failed to consider and allege a cause of action which plaintiff had available under the facts of the case: Breach of an Oral Contract. My failure to include this cause of action may well have constituted attorney error on my part.” (Supplemental Sobel Decl. ¶ 3.) As noted by Defendant, at the July 14, 2020 trial setting conference and hearing for Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff’s Counsel stated that the delay was because Counsel had recently learned from another attorney there was a possibility that Plaintiff could assert a breach of contract action in this case. (Davis Decl. ¶ 5.)

The court also notes that Plaintiff has attached a copy of the proposed FAC. (Sobel Decl. Ex. 1.)

Opposition

Defendant opposes on the grounds that: “(1) the motion is untimely and there is no justifiable explanation for the delay; (2) [Defendant] will suffer significant prejudice if the motion is granted; and (3) the proposed new causes of action in the first amended complaint fail to state a cause of action against [Defendant] or any other named defendant in this action.” (Opposition p.4:9-13.)

Sufficiency of New Claims

As to the third contention, the court notes that there is no requirement that a critical inquiry be made into the merits of the amendment on a request for leave to amend. (See Ruiz v. Santa Barbara Gas & Elec. Co. (1912) 164 Cal. 188, 196 [ “The usual and orderly way to test the sufficiency of an amended complaint is, in the first instance, by demurrer, after the same has been filed, when the questions presented in regard thereto may be considered and determined, and leave given to the pleader to amend if the pleading be held insufficient and the court deem it proper that the party should have such leave.”].)

Prejudice and Undue Delay

“[W]here there is no prejudice to the adverse party, it may be an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend.” (Fair v. Bakhtiari (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1147.) “Courts must apply a policy of liberality in permitting amendments at any stage of the proceeding, including during trial, when no prejudice to the opposing party is shown.” (P&D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1345.) Prejudice exists where the proposed amendments would result in additional discovery, increased costs, and delay. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.)

As to undue delay and prejudice, Defendant points out that earlier in this case, Defendant propounded discovery specifically asking Plaintiff whether there was “a breach of any agreement alleged in the pleadings?” (Davis Decl. Ex. 1, 50.2.) Plaintiff responded that the question was “[n]ot applicable as no agreement is alleged in the pleadings.” (Davis Decl. Ex. 2, No. 50.2.) Defendant asserts that she relied on this discovery response in pursuing discovery and preparing for trial. The instant action has been pending for over two years, and Defendant has already incurred costs and fees of $30,132.93 in defending this action. (Davis Decl. ¶ 6.) Defendant contends that the addition of two new causes of action may cause further delay and result in additional expenses. In addition, amendment of the complaint would moot Defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment. The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff should have acted more diligently and sought to amend earlier in the case.

Nonetheless, though Defendant’s arguments are well taken, the court finds that the degree of prejudice does not outweigh the strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments. The discovery responses that Defendant cites were from May 6, 2019 -- before Plaintiff’s counsel states that he became aware of a plausible breach of contract claim. Further, Plaintiff is merely seeking to advance a new legal theory -- breach of contract. As Defendant herself notes, the factual allegations supporting this new legal theory have always been included in Plaintiff’s original complaint. Thus, Defendant has always been on notice of these factual allegations in preparing for trial, which lessens the additional discovery that will be necessary in light of the amendment. Indeed, Plaintiff points out that Defendant has not even yet conducted depositions. With regard to the pending motion for summary judgment, the court will continue the hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment to allow Defendant to file a demurrer and/or new moving papers for the motion for summary judgment. Because the original causes of action remain, the attorney’s fees that Defendant has incurred in preparing the motion for summary judgment will not have been incurred in vain. Finally, in light of the global COVID-19 pandemic and health concerns presented by jury trials, the Presiding Judge has ordered that non-preference civil jury trials not commence prior to January 2021. There will be a backlog of cases older than the instant case, which will have to be tried prior to this case, and thus, amendment of complaint will not cause delay of the trial of this matter

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend the complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff to file his First Amended Complaint within 3 days. Defendant is to file a responsive pleading within 30 days of service of the First Amended Complaint.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is continued to May 5, 2021 at 8:30 am. If Defendant Doris Hill wishes to file amended moving papers for her motion for summary judgment, she may timely file and serve a complete set of amended moving papers (including notice, memorandum of points and authorities, separate statement, and declarations and other evidence). If Defendant files any amended moving papers, then the court will consider only the amended moving papers and disregard the original moving papers (filed May 17, 2019). If no amended moving papers are filed, the court will consider Defendant’s original moving papers (filed May 17, 2019) as well as the two declarations that Defendant filed on March 20, 2020 (declarations of Samuel B. Ledwitz and Eric L. Davis) to be Defendant’s moving papers, and the parties may timely file and serve an amended opposition and an amended reply.[1]

The trial and FSC dates in the related case (BC678628) are vacated.

A trial setting conference in both cases (BC696686 and BC678628) is set for October 21, 2020 at 10:00 am.

Further, the court is setting this matter for an OSC re consolidation of the two cases for trial purposes only to allow both cases to be concurrently tried together in one trial. Any party opposed to consolidating BC678628 and BC696686 for trial is ordered to show cause on October 21, 2020 at 10:00 am why BC678628 and BC696686 should not be consolidated for trial purposes only. Any such party opposed to consolidating BC678628 and BC696686 for trial purposes must also file and serve a written opposition no later than one week before the October 21 OSC demonstrating why the two cases should not be concurrently tried together.

The court’s Judicial Assistant is to serve this order on all parties in both BC678628 and BC696686.

DATED: August 31, 2020 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court


[1] A party moving for summary judgment generally may not rely on additional evidence filed with its reply papers. (San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 316.) Evidence filed for the first time in a reply may violate the opposing party’s due process rights if considered by the Court. (Ibid.) Thus, evidence and exhibits presented in support of a reply are not generally allowed. (See Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 249.) However, because Plaintiff’s amendment of the complaint will necessitate a continuance of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment here, Plaintiff will have more than the required statutory period of notice that the court will deem the additional declarations of Samuel B. Ledwitz and Eric L. Davis filed on March 20, 2020 as part of the moving evidence in support of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Indeed, Plaintiff will have had more than eight months of notice that the court will consider this evidence as part of Defendant’s moving evidence, which provides Plaintiff with more than ample time to counter such evidence.

Case Number: BC696686    Hearing Date: July 14, 2020    Dept: 26

IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT PHYSICAL DISTANCING AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THE COURT STRONGLY ENCOURAGES ALL COUNSEL AND ALL PARTIES TO APPEAR REMOTELY FOR NON-TRIAL AND NON-EVIDENTIARY MATTERS, INCLUDING THIS MOTION.

On March 5, 2018, Plaintiff Vincent Watson (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendant Doris Hill (“Defendant”), Doris Hill as trustee of the Watson’s Family Living Trust dated March 9, 2007, the Watson’s Family Living Trust dated March 9, 2007, and all other persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in this complaint, which is adverse to Plaintiff’s title or creates any cloud on Plaintiff’s title for (1) Quiet Title and (2) Cancelation of Instrument.

On May 7, 2019, Defendant filed the instant motion for summary judgment. On March 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On March 20, 2020. Defendant filed a reply. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this hearing was continued to July 14, 2020 at 11:00 am. (Minute Orders 3/20/20, 4/29/20.) The Court served notice of the continuance on the moving party (Defendant) and ordered the moving parties to serve notice on all other parties. The moving party has failed to file proof of service of the Court’s April 29, 2020 order on any other party. Therefore, it is unclear whether Plaintiff has received notice of the continued, July 14, 2020 hearing date. 

In addition, on June 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed and served a motion for leave to amend the complaint, which has been set for hearing on August 31, 2020 at 8:30 am. The court notes that if either party wants the trial court to consider a previously unpleaded issue in connection with a motion for summary judgment, it may request leave to amend. (Bostrom v. County of San Bernardino (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1654, 1663; Hobson v. Raychem Corp. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 614, 625 [citing text] [disapproved on other grounds by Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club, Inc. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1019, 1031 fn. 6].)

It appears to the court that the instant motion for summary judgment should be continued to a hearing date following the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. The parties should be prepared to address the propriety of such a continuance of this motion for summary judgment.