Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 20STCV11677, Date: 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling
The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.
Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.
The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.
Case Number: 20STCV11677 Hearing Date: October 26, 2022 Dept: O
Defendant Shawn M.
Millner-Todd’s Motion to Continue Trial Setting Conference is DENIED.
Background
This is a partition action filed by Plaintiff Nobia Joyce (“Joyce”) against her daughter Shawn M. Millner, individually and as trustee for the Shawn Marie Millner Revocable Trust (collectively, “Millner”), and her daughter’s boyfriend, Laurence Todd (“Todd”). Joyce alleges that she purchased the property located at 317 Oakview Drive, Azusa, CA 91702 (“subject property”) with her daughter in March 21, 1996 and that she owns 50% of the subject property, but that Millner and Todd have been attempting to remove her from the subject property.
On July 17, 2015, Joyce filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Millner and Todd for:
1.
Partition (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 872.210, 872.230, 872.820
2.
Accounting
3.
Conversion
4.
Elder Abuse
5.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
6.
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
On December 2, 2015, the court granted Millner’s and Todd’s motion to strike out Joyce’s 4th-6th causes of action. On December 9, 2015, Millner (in her individual capacity only) and Todd filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”), asserting causes of action for:
1.
Invasion of Privacy—Intrusion into Seclusion
2.
Invasion of Privacy—Penal Code §§ 632 & 637.2
On July 2, 2018, Joyce dismissed the second and third causes of action, without prejudice. On July 5, 2018, a “Stipulation Re: Settlement” was filed; that day, the court ordered the action “dismissed with prejudice pursuant to CCP Section 664.6, with the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.”
On February 3, 2020, the court issued a nunc pro tunc order, wherein the July 5, 2018 minute order was corrected to reflect a dismissal without prejudice.
On October 1, 2020, the court related Case Nos. KC067782, 19PSCV00124 and 20STCV11677 and deemed Case No. KC067782 to be the lead case.
Case No. 19PSCV00124
Plaintiff Stephen R. Golden (“Golden”) alleges as follows:
On or about March 21, 1996, Joyce and Millner orally agreed to purchase the subject property, each with a 50% interest. They agreed that Joyce would provide Millner with $29,400.00 in order for Millner to qualify for the purchase of the subject property. On November 17, 2011, Millner drew up a trust that named Joyce as the executor of the trust and attorney in fact. On or about March 2015, Millner removed Joyce by giving her a 60-day notice and calling the police to remove her, placing her on a 5150 hold and filing a temporary restraining order against her. On or around July 17, 2015, Joyce filed a lawsuit against Millner (i.e., Case No. KC067782). On July 5, 2018, Joyce and Millner signed a stipulation and settlement agreement, which provided: (1) all parties would dismiss all claims without prejudice and bear their own costs, (2) Millner and Joyce would in good faith see a suitable accommodation for Joyce within 14 days and (3) Millner would provide continuing financial assistance and/or consultation to secure suitable accommodations for Joyce as the need arose. Millner failed to secure suitable living accommodations for Joyce, who is now homeless. Joyce assigned her rights and interests to Golden.
On March 19, 2019, Golden filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against Millner and Does 1-10 for:
1.
Partition (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 872.210, 872.230, 872.820)
2.
Breach of Settlement Agreement
On June 4, 2019, Golden dismissed the action, without prejudice.
Again, on October 1, 2020, the court related Case Nos. KC067782, 19PSCV00124 and 20STCV11677 and deemed Case No. KC067782 to be the lead case.
Case No. 20STCV11677
Joyce alleges as follows:
Millner “unlawfully dispossessed” her
from the home they owned jointly. When Joyce sought recovery of her ownership
interest in court, Joyce’s former attorney (who was suspended from the State
Bar, but did not tell her of same) persuaded her to dismiss her original claims
without prejudice and to sign a document that purported to assign her rights
and interests to him so that he could litigate her claims in pro per and still
collect contingency fees on the verdict. These claims were also dismissed
without prejudice. Joyce seeks to establish her joint ownership interest in the
home.
On March 20, 2020, Joyce filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Millner, Todd and Does 1-20 for:
1.
Quiet Title
2.
Partition
3.
Declaratory Relief
4.
Ejectment and Damages
A Trial Setting Conference is set for November 29, 2022.
Discussion
Millner moves the court, per California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1332, subdivision (c), for an order continuing the trial setting conference for 9 months.
Millner’s motion is summarily denied. At the outset, CRC Rule 3.1332 pertains only to motions or applications for continuance of trial, not of a trial setting conference. Further, the November 29, 2022 hearing is not a trial readiness conference but merely a trial setting conference.