Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV10036, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV10036 Hearing Date: April 8, 2024 Dept: 47
Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE: April 8, 2024 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET
CASE: Bruce Dwain Copeland v. Amy Pham
CASE NO.: 22STCV10036 
RENEWED MOTION TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO FURNISH SECURITY
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Amy Pham
RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 4/3/24.
CASE HISTORY:
· 03/23/22: Complaint filed.
· 03/14/23: First Amended Complaint filed.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
This is an action for quiet title and injunctive relief. Plaintiff contends that Defendant is fraudulently claiming ownership of the property in which Plaintiff resides and which he contends that he owns.
Defendant Amy Pham brings a renewed motion to require Plaintiff to furnish security as a vexatious litigant.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Amy Pham’s Renewed Motion to Order Plaintiff to Furnish Security is DENIED.
DISCUSSION:
Defendant Amy Pham brings a renewed motion to require Plaintiff to furnish security as a vexatious litigant.
//
Defendant Pham’s Request for Judicial Notice
Defendant Pham requests that the Court take judicial notice of the docket in this case. Although it is not strictly necessary to request that the Court take judicial notice of its own records, Defendant’s request is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d) (court records).
Analysis
Defendant Amy Pham brings a renewed motion to require Plaintiff to furnish security as a vexatious litigant.
Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 provides, in relevant part:
(a) When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.
* * *
(d) A violation of this section may be punished as a contempt and with sanctions as allowed by Section 128.7. In addition, an order made contrary to this section may be revoked by the judge or commissioner who made it, or vacated by a judge of the court in which the action or proceeding is pending.
(e) This section specifies the court’s jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions, and applies to all applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous motion, whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or final. No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.
(Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a), (d), (e) (bold emphasis added).)
On May 24, 2023, the Court granted a motion by Defendant U.S. National Bank Association to deem Plaintiff Bruce Copeland a vexatious litigant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391. (May 24, 2023 Minute Order.) The Court also granted U.S. National Bank’s simultaneous request for an order requiring Plaintiff to post security in the amount of $50,000. (Id.) Defendant Pham joined that motion, but the Court denied her request for security on the basis that her papers did not demonstrate any legal basis for her request and the Bank’s motion did not speak to her entitlement to security. (Id.)
Although Defendant Pham purports to seek reconsideration of the Court’s prior ruling, this motion was brought outside the ten day time limit set forth in subdivision (a) of section 1008. This motion is therefore more properly construed as a renewed motion for an undertaking pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391.1. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(b).) However, Defendant Pham entirely fails to state any facts or law that would entitle her to an order that Plaintiff post an undertaking to maintain his claims against her, new or otherwise. As the Court stated in its previous ruling, Defendant Pham may not simply point to U.S. Bank’s Motion to Deem Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant because that motion did not speak to the validity of any claims brought by Plaintiff against Defendant Pham. (May 24, 2023 Minute Order.) If Defendant Pham desires Plaintiff to post an undertaking, she must demonstrate with evidence and legal argument that there is no reasonable probability that Plaintiff will prevail against her. (Code Civ. Proc. § 391.1.) Defendant Pham has not done so.
CONCLUSION:
Accordingly, Defendant Amy Pham’s Renewed Motion to Order Plaintiff to Furnish Security is DENIED.
Moving Parties to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 8, 2024 ___________________________________
Theresa M. Traber
Judge of the Superior Court
Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.
Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE: April 8, 2024 TRIAL DATE: March
19, 2024
CASE: Bruce Dwain Copeland v. Amy Pham
CASE NO.: 22STCV10036
MOTION TO DISMISS
FOR FAILURE TO FURNISH SECURITY
MOVING PARTY: Defendant U.S. Bank National Association, As Trustee
for GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-12, Asset Backed Certificates Series 2006-12;
RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on
eCourt as of 2/28/24
CASE
HISTORY:
·
03/23/22: Complaint filed.
·
03/14/23: First Amended Complaint filed.
STATEMENT
OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
This is an action for quiet
title and injunctive relief. Plaintiff contends that Defendant is fraudulently
claiming ownership of the property in which Plaintiff resides and which he
contends that he owns.
Defendant U.S. Bank moves to
dismiss for Plaintiff’s failure to furnish security pursuant to the Court’s May
24, 2023 order declaring Plaintiff a vexatious litigant.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant U.S. Bank moves to
dismiss for Plaintiff’s failure to furnish security pursuant to the Court’s May
24, 2023 order declaring Plaintiff a vexatious litigant.
Request for Judicial Notice
Defendant
requests that the Court take judicial notice of (1) the Notice of Ruling on the
Motion to Designate Plaintiff as a Vexatious Litigant filed on May 25, 2023 in
this action; (2) the May 24, 2023 Prefiling Order for Vexatious Litigant in
this action; and (3) the Notice of Appeal filed in this action on June 23,
2023. Defendant’s requests are GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d)
(court records).
Analysis
On May 24,
2023, this Court granted Defendant U.S. Bank’s Motion to Designate Plaintiff a
Vexatious Litigant, finding that Plaintiff had filed six actions in propria
persona in the past seven years which had been finally determined against
him, and, therefore, that he is a vexatious litigant as a matter of law. (RJN
Exh. 1.A.) The Court also ordered Plaintiff to furnish security in the amount
of $50,000 to maintain his claims against Defendant U.S. Bank only pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure section 391.1. (Id.)
Defendant
contends that it has received no indication that Plaintiff has furnished any
security. (Declaration of E. Christine Hehir ISO Mot. ¶ 3.) The Court’s own
records confirm Defendant’s contention. Therefore, pursuant to the express
terms of Code of Civil Procedure section 391.4, Plaintiff’s claims against this
Defendant must be dismissed.
Accordingly,
Defendant U.S. Bank’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
Dismissal
is entered without prejudice on all causes of action as to Defendant
U.S. Bank National Association, As Trustee for GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-12,
Asset Backed Certificates Series 2006-12.
Moving
Party to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 8, 2024 ___________________________________
Theresa
M. Traber
Judge
of the Superior Court
Any party may submit on the
tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day
before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It
should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still
conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you
have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you
should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an
order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.