Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV00646, Date: 2022-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: August 10, 2022

Case Name: Chamouille v. Brown, et al.

Case No.: 21STCV33767

Matter: Motion to Vacate Order 

Moving Party: Cross-Complainant/Defendant Kirk Brown 

Responding Party: Unopposed 

Ruling: The Motion is denied.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On September 13, 2021, Plaintiff Roxana K. Chamouille filed the operative Complaint against Defendants Kirk Brown and Pablo Crawford for ejectment.

On February 25, 2022, Kirk Brown, a pro per litigant, filed a Cross-Complaint against Roxana K. Chamouille for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment.  Brown alleges that “during the course of his relationship with [Plaintiff’s sister,] Mandana Kabiri Brown, including the period they were married and thereafter, he commingled his funds with his wife, now deceased, and together paid all household expenses, including mortgage payments, and further provided such improvements on said property including ceiling jobs, carpeting, painting and gardening, and tree services.”

On May 6, 2022, Kirk Brown filed a notice of bankruptcy stay.  The Court then set a Status Conference re: Bankruptcy for June 3, 2022.

On May 10, 2022, the Court heard a demurrer filed by Chamouille as to Brown’s Cross-Complaint.  The tentative ruling was to sustain the demurrer.  The Court, however, ultimately continued the demurrer because of the aforementioned bankruptcy stay.  

On May 16, 2022, Brown filed the instant Motion to Vacate the Court’s May 10, 2022, order.  Brown seems to be under the impression that the demurrer was sustained on May 10, 2022, when in fact it was continued.  

On May 31, 2022, Chamouille filed a notice that the bankruptcy court ruled as follows: “The automatic stay does not apply to this Ejectment action. 2. Plaintiff’s motions for relief from stay are granted. 3. The automatic stay is annulled retroactive to the date Brown filed for bankruptcy.”

On June 3, 2022, the Court again heard Chamouille’s demurrer to Brown’s Cross-Complaint.  The tentative ruling was “If the bankruptcy stay was lifted as to the Cross-Complaint, the Demurrer is sustained.  Leave to amend is to be argued.”  The Court ultimately sustained the demurrer, without leave to amend.  At the same time, the Court granted Chamouille’s motion for summary judgment on her Complaint for ejectment.

With respect to the instant Motion to Vacate, it is directed at the May 10, 2022, demurrer hearing.  Brown argues that the Court’s ruling was erroneous because a bankruptcy stay was in place at the time.  As discussed, the Court did not sustain the demurrer on May 10, 2022, but rather did so on June 3, 2022, when given notice that the stay had been lifted.  Therefore, the Motion seeks inapplicable relief with respect to the May 10, 2022, hearing and fails to analyze or comment on whether there was a stay in place on June 3, 2022, when the demurrer was actually sustained.  Accordingly, the Motion is denied.

The Court also notes that Brown’s proof of service fails to clearly specify how service was rendered (i.e., by mail, email, or personal service).  

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.