Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV00453, Date: 2022-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00453    Hearing Date: December 12, 2022    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 12-12-22

Case #22CHCV00453

Trial Date: Not Set

PROTECTIVE ORDER

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Sally Motodani, pro per

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Defendant, Omar Hernandez

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Protective Order

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On an unspecified date, 13534 Mercer St., Pacoima, sold for an unspecified amount. On May 6, 2022, Plaintiff Sally Motodani received a $181,798.69 check from the escrow company. Because plaintiff is 96 years old, and depends on a caretaker, Plaintiff alleges an agreement with the buyers for a six (6) month courtesy stay on the premises in order to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to find a new residence. The stay was set to end on September 14, 2022.

Meanwhile, Plaintiff agreed to certain construction work on the premises with Defendant Omar Hernandez. According to an exhibit attached to the complaint, a March 14, 2022, purported agreement represents that Plaintiff agreed to equally split sales proceeds with Defendant in exchange for said work. Following the close of escrow, Plaintiff tendered a $90,0000 check to Defendant, but then issued a stop payment on the check, due to the alleged failure to complete the contracted work, such as roof repairs. Plaintiff instead contends the $90,000 is necessary for relocation efforts. Notwithstanding the stop payment, the check was allegedly cashed by Defendant under some form of false pretenses.

On June 20, 2022, Plaintiff, in pro per, filed a complaint for Money Had and Received, Fraud, Conversion, and Violation of Penal Code section 496(a)

RULING: Denied.

Plaintiff Sally Motodani moves for a “protective order” allowing Plaintiff to remain on the premises for another six months (e.g. from the September 14, 2022 deadline alleged in the complaint) or until the subject action is adjudicated. The requested relief arises from a purported agreement between Plaintiff and the purchasers of the property, third parties Evelynn Lopez Diaz and Miguel Diaz, Jr., allowing Plaintiff to remain on the premises for six months following the sale. The court electronic filing system shows no opposition or reply at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

The court finds no basis of support for the granting of such relief. Evelynn Lopez Diaz and Miguel Diaz, Jr. are represented as the purchasing parties of the home, and therefore participants to the agreement allowing for the six month post sale occupation period, yet are not parties to the instant action. The court lacks a basis of authority for imposing an effective prohibition of Evelynn Lopez Diaz and Miguel Diaz, Jr. from taking total and exclusive possession of their property due to a dispute with defendant Hernandez. The court therefore declines to grant the motion in any form against third parties. The unopposed motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give notice.