It Happened To Us. It Could Happen To You. The Nick and Donna Nickerson Family. www.ithappenedtous.com
Home / In The News / State Foreclosures / California
In The News
Real life. Real people. Real attacks. Real action needed.


Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Tell Your Story

Contact Us


California

I Have Found it

Quick Facts
 
Prior Name: Mexican Cession, Alta California
 
Capital: Sacramento
 
Area: 158,693 square miles
 
Ranks 3rd in size
 
Nickname: Golden State
 
State Slogan: Find Yourself Here
 
Admission Date: 1850
 
State Flower: Golden Poppy
 
State Bird: California Valley Quail
Did you know?

  • The official reptile of California is the desert tortoise.
  •  
  • The tallest trees in the world are the California redwoods growing to over 300 feet tall.
  •  
  • The largest living things in the world are the Sequoia trees.
  •  
  • In 1945, the United Nations was founded in San Francisco.
  •  
  • Mount Whitney, standing at 14,494 feet above sea level, is the highest mountain peak in the Continental United States.
  •  
  • Death Valley, located at 282 feet below sea level, is the lowest point in the Continental United States.
  •  
  • With almost 3 million acres, San Bernardino is the largest county by land area in the United States.

In 1850 California became the 31st State to be admitted into the United States of America. Below are excerpts of the California Constitution followed by what has and is happening in California.


The Constitution of California
We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.
Preamble

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
Article 1, Section 1

Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
A person is not incompetent to be a witness or juror because of his or her opinions on religious beliefs.
Article 1, Section 4

(a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; provided, that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this Constitution imposes upon the State of California or any public entity, board, or official any obligations or responsibilities which exceed those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution with respect to the use of pupil school assignment or pupil transportation.
Article 1, Section 7

Trial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all, but in a civil cause threefourths of the jury may render a verdict. A jury may be waived in a criminal cause by the consent of both parties expressed in open court by the defendant and the defendant’s counsel. In a civil cause a jury may be waived by the consent of the parties expressed as prescribed by statute.
In civil causes the jury shall consist of 12 persons or a lesser number agreed on by the parties in open court. In civil causes other than causes within the appellate jurisdiction of the court of appeal the Legislature may provide that the jury shall consist of eight persons or a lesser number agreed on by the parties in open court.
In criminal actions in which a felony is charged, the jury shall consist of 12 persons. In criminal actions in which a misdemeanor is charged, the jury shall consist of 12 persons or a lesser number agreed on by the parties in open court.
Article 1, Section 16


View article as PDFView as PDF
 
 

It is happening in California
You may find yourself in California, but keep an eye on your house if you do.



CHASE puts kids out on the street while their single mother is at work.
Christmas Carolers Protest Foreclosure at CHASE Bank.

The protesters filled the lobby at Chase Bank at 51st and Broadway, calling on bank officers to halt the foreclosure of a West Oakland townhouse where a woman and her three children live.

In tune with the season, they sang reworded Christmas carols: “On the first month of default, my true love sang to me, we lost all of our equity.”

Organized and supported by Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE), the group came together to help occupy the home and support Gayla Newsome, who has been trying to negotiate with JP Morgan Chase and has yet to win a loan modifiction...


It is Christmas time and this article says Chase is throwing families out on the street for Christmas. Americans should gather in front of Chase headquarters and Chase banks across the nation to protest. JP Morgan Chase employees threatened to throw us and our children out of the streets too. They demanded we sign over a note to them or they would take everything we own. We had not done anything wrong so we refused to cower to their blackmail demands. We fought back and are still fighting back. We are still in possession of our home, but the courts have ruled against us. Join us and others in this fight for our homes. What Chase and the other Banksters are doing is wrong. They are unlawfully seizing America. Jamie Dimon, Chase and their accomplices need to be held accountable for the abuse they have perpetrated on innocent people. For Christmas, the United States of America needs to give them and their attorneys a free long-term rental in a jail cell.
Read more...

View article as PDFView as PDF 


Tags: California
Source: http://www.content.postnewsgroup.com/2012/01/christmas-carolers-protest-foreclosure-at-chase-bank/
Article by Ken A. Epstein, January 3, 2012

 
Update to our comments above: On November 12, 2019, JPMorgan Chase and PHH hired the police powers of the State of Idaho to throw us off our Idaho ranch just before Thanksgiving. Our family has been camping out and holding a prayer vigil on a hillside above our Idaho Ranch. They have our Christmas lights, Nativity sets, Christmas presents, and other personal belongings still held hostage at the ranch and stuffed in storage units across the state line in Washington. This article was written in 2012. Seven years later Chase is doing the same thing to our family. If someone does not stop them, they will still be doing it to other families seven years from now. Wake up, America. Your family may be next. Who is going to help you?


Family Current On Its Mortgage Had House Sold In Foreclosure
An Altadena, California family will be able to keep its home after a local news report exposed major errors made by the financial company that tried to sell it out from under the borrowers even though they were current on their payments.....Once the local news started making calls and reviewing the Sinclairs’ documents proving they had always been current on their payments, the nightmare ended....the improper foreclosure sale has been rescinded and the company says it will now honor the pre-existing loan modification.
Read more...

View article as PDFView as PDF 


Tags: California
Source: https://thinkprogress.org/family-current-on-its-mortgage-had-house-sold-in-foreclosure-cefc1cd5ca0e/
Article by Alan Pyke, September 16, 2013

 

Police refuse to evict ex-marine Arturo de los Santos and his family despite CHASE and Freddie Mac's unreasonable demands
Arturo de los Santos began reoccupying his home in Riverside, California, last December after JPMorgan Chase and Freddie Mac foreclosed on it in June. Arturo is a former U.S. marine who has lived in his house for almost a decade with his wife and four kids....
Read more...

View article as PDFView as PDF


Tags: California
Source: http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/31/ex_marine_re_occupies_his_own
Article by DemocracyNow.org, January 31, 2012




Riverside Sheriff will not evict Arturo

In the latest news on veteran Arturo de Los Santos and his family's foreclosure case, the Riverside Sheriffs Department has refused to evict the family from their home, despite Freddie Mac's persistence in taking Arturo to court for refusing to vacate. Freddie Mac refuses to take Arturo's mortgage payments and would rather spend thousands of dollars taking him to court. Read the press....

De los Santos vows to keep fighting on behalf of his family and thousands of homeowners being ignored or improperly foreclosed on by JP Morgan Chase and/or Freddie Mac....

A California family is fighting back on this one. The Riverside Sheriffs Department refused to evict the Santos family from their home despite Freddie Mac’s persistence in taking Arturo to court for refusing to vacate. Are there any other Sheriffs willing to follow their oath and support the Constitution left out there? Apparently not in Clearwater County, Idaho.
Read more...

View article as PDFView as PDF


Tags: California
Source: http://www.rebuildthedream.com/blog_riverside_sheriffs_department_wont_evict_arturo
Article by LANA N., March 12, 2012

 

22 arrested for protesting on CHASE bank steps
Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment member David Mazariegos said the demonstrators hoped to bring attention to the plight of people who were unjustly losing their homes....“The banks are not helping anyone stay in their homes,” Mazariegos said. “It’s highway robbery, what they’re doing to these people.”

Homeowners facing foreclosure, community advocates, and labor leaders tell CHASE no more.
Read more...

View article as PDFView as PDF


Tags: California
Source: http://newsone.com/916395/protesting-foreclosures-at-chase-bank-arrests/
Article by NewsOne Staff

 

Man Wins House Free and Clear: UD Judgment for Homeowner Vacating "Sale"
“What we are seeing is a paradigm shift where Judges are no longer afraid to see homeowners win.” — Neil F Garfield....

It will be interesting to see how HSBC reports this and similar cases recently won by homeowners. The bottom line, as stated by the Judge in California, where Unlawful Detainer successes have been rare, is that the pretender lender was attempting to enforce a mortgage that didn’t legally exist and that their attempt to evict the homeowner was a sham. Here’s the story. For privacy reasons we will call the homeowner Donald....

Thus HSBC lacks standing and lacks the ability to establish itself as a real party in interest. The UD was ended with Judgment for Donald, vacating the sale at the fake auction, thus leaving Donald with the home without any mortgage.

Faulty legal description strips lien from house! Homeowner in California receives home free and clear because the legal description provided used to sell his home was different than his original deed of trust.
Read more...

View article as PDFView as PDF


Tags: California
Source: http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/ca-man-wins-house-free-and-clear-ud-judgment-for-homeowner-vacating-sale/
Article by Neil Garfield, June 7, 2011

 

Chase’s fraudulent foreclosure: Court finds for plaintiffs Bank committed fraud in order to show ownership
JPMorgan Chase (JPM) created and recorded false documentation that showed the bank owned the mortgage of two California residents in order to foreclose on their home, the California Court of Appeals stated in a ruling Monday....

In September 2012, a trial court in California ruled in favor of the Kalickis, stating that they owned the property and quieted the title in their favor.

The court also found that Chase had executed and recorded false documentation that showed that the ownership of the Kalickis' mortgage was transferred to Chase. The court also ruled that a Chase executive created a document that “fraudulently represented that a prior assignment had been lost and that Chase owned the Kalickis' mortgage.”

The lower court ruling voided all of the fraudulent documents and prohibited Chase from recording any false or misleading documents representing that it owned the Kalickis' mortgage....
Read more...

View article as PDFView as PDF


Tags: California
Source: https://www.housingwire.com/articles/30540-chases-fraudulent-foreclosure-court-says-executive-falsified-documents
Article by Ben Lane, July 2, 2014

 

Homeowner Suffers Horrific Injustice at the Hands of JPMorgan CHASE
From Mandelman - For over two years I’ve had a front row seat for the foreclosure crisis, the by-product of our government’s complete mishandling of the worst economic downturn in seventy years. During that time I’ve been exposed to some pretty horrific things… people living in their cars with a child sleeping in the trunk… the eviction of an 89 year-old couple… I’ve gotten to know what that fear sounds like and feels like… the fear of losing one’s home while the country talks about you as being nothing more than an “irresponsible borrower,” someone who never should have bought your home in the first place, even though you may have lived in it for 30 years.

What I saw this past week, however, was something new for me… I’d heard of things like this happening before, written about them, even.  But, I had never seen anything like it, up close and personal....

An Anaheim couple with an eight year-old daughter has lost their home… that would be one way of phrasing it. Another way to describe what happened would be to say that JPMorgan Chase, an outfit that I now see clearly is significantly worse than any crime family… has thus far been permitted by the courts and the laws in California to STEAL an Anaheim couple’s home.

Why do I say that Chase stole it? Well, there are lots of reasons, but I think the one that tops my list would have to be, because they never missed or were late on a payment… in every single month that JPMorgan Chase told the couple to make a payment… they paid the exact amount they were told to pay… on time and as agreed… never missed even one… never were late, not even once.

“We trusted the bank,” the Mom says, “like idiots.”....

We’re not people who simply decided to skip out on our mortgage. We did everything as upright and by the book as we were instructed to do by Chase yet we still lost our home. On the day they took back the property, I called Chase pleading for an alternative to this. Their reply to me was “I suggest you find a new place to live.”....

So, why is that okay with even one single American? We treat criminals better than this. But today’s homeowners aren’t losing homes for the same reasons as before, they’re not deadbeats, they’re victims. And something has to be done to change this, because as sure as I’m sitting here, what’s happening is going to end badly and I fear, violently. People are going to get hurt… I don’t know how, when or where… but no way does this just keep going and everyone’s okay.

Read more...

View article as PDFView as PDF


Tags: California
Source: http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2011/03/homeowner-suffers-horrific-injustice-at-the-hands-of-jpmorgan-chase/
Article by Mandelman

 

Court of Appeal Addresses "Prejudice" Element of Wrongful Foreclosure
..."only the entity currently entitled to enforce a debt may foreclose on the mortgage or deed of trust securing that debt." In this case, based on the clear paper trail of assignments, the entity entitled to enforce the debt was Deutsche Bank, but the entity that foreclosed was Bank of America....

The court concluded that a property owner "who has been foreclosed on by one with no right to do so - by those facts alone - sustains prejudice or harm sufficient to constitute a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure."

Read more...

View article as PDFView as PDF


Tags: California
Source: https://moneyanddirt.com/2016/06/court-of-appeal-addresses-prejudice-element-of-wrongful-foreclosure/
Article by Kevin Brodehl, June 18, 2016

 


Case Excerpts

Below are excerpts from legal cases that we have found during our research. Please note that we are not necessarily recommending or endorsing any of the cases or their outcomes. However, we have found the parts below to be helpful and informative in our battle.



Assignments
“The burden of proving an assignment falls upon the party asserting rights thereunder (Read v. Buffum, supra, 79 Cal. 77 [21 P. 555, 12 Am.St.Rep. 131]; Ford v. Bushard, 116 Cal. 273 [48 P. 119]; Bovard v. Dickenson, 131 Cal. 162 [63 P. 162]; Nakagawa v. Okamoto, 164 Cal. 718 [130 P. 707]). [8] In an action by an assignee to enforce an assigned right, the evidence must not only be sufficient to establish the fact of assignment when that fact is in issue (Quan Wye v. Chin Lin Hee, 123 Cal. 185 [55 P. 783]) but the measure of sufficiency requires that the evidence of assignment be clear and positive to protect an obligor from any further claim by the primary obligee (Gustafson v. Stockton etc. R. R. Co., 132 Cal. 619 [64 P. 995]).

In Bengel v. Kenney, 126 Cal.App. 735 [14 P.2d 1031], where the plaintiff claimed title under an assignment of a purported assignee of a corporation but the evidence failed to show that the assignment by the corporation was executed by a person having authority to do so, it was held that the evidence failed to show title in the plaintiff by reason of such an assignment. In Brown v. Ball, 123 Cal.App. 758 [12 P.2d 28], it was held that the evidence was insufficient to establish the execution of an assignment where there was no evidence to show that it was executed by the person whose name purported to be signed thereto or that the signer had authority as agent to execute the instrument.”

Cockerell v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., 42 Cal. 2d 284, 267 P.2d 16 (1954)

View article as PDFView as PDF


Tags: California
Source:
Cockerell v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., 42 Cal. 2d 284, 267 P.2d 16 (1954)
 

Entity Foreclosing
“Accordingly, we conclude that a homeowner who has been foreclosed on by one with no right to do so — by those facts alone — sustains prejudice or harm sufficient to constitute a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure. When a non-debtholder forecloses, a homeowner is harmed by losing her home to an entity with no legal right to take it. Therefore, under those circumstances, the void assignment is the proximate cause of actual injury and all that is required to be alleged to satisfy the element of prejudice or harm in a wrongful foreclosure cause of action. The opposite rule, urged by defendants in this case, would allow an entity to foreclose with impunity on homes that were worth less than the amount of the debt, even if there were no legal justification whatsoever for the foreclosure. The potential consequences of wrongfully evicting homeowners are too severe to allow such a result. (See Miles v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 394, 410 [186 Cal.Rptr.3d 625] (Miles).)
“On the issue of standing, the Supreme Court stated, "`[B]anks are neither private attorneys general nor bounty hunters, armed with a roving commission to seek out defaulting homeowners and take away their homes in satisfaction of some other bank's deed of trust.'" (Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 938.) Yvanova's holding on standing would be undermined unless the same considerations applied in determining what prejudice must be alleged to constitute a wrongful foreclosure cause of action. (Ibid.) Therefore, we reverse the judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court erroneously sustained a demurrer to Sciarratta's first amended complaint without leave to amend, and remand for further proceedings.

”[O]nly the entity currently entitled to enforce a debt may foreclose on the mortgage or deed of trust securing that debt...." (Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 928.) "It is no mere `procedural nicety,' from a contractual point of view, to insist that only those with authority to foreclose on a borrower be permitted to do so." (Id. at p. 938.)

A homeowner experiences prejudice or harm when an entity with no interest in the debt forecloses. When a non-debtholder forecloses, a homeowner is harmed because he or she has lost her home to an entity with no legal right to take it. If not for the void assignment, the incorrect entity would not have pursued a wrongful foreclosure. Therefore, the void assignment is the cause in fact of the homeowner's injury and all he or she is required to allege on the element of prejudice. The critical issue is not the plaintiff's ability to pay, but rather whether the defendant's conduct resulted in the plaintiff's harm; i.e., a foreclosure that was wrongful because it was initiated by a person or entity having no legal right to do so; i.e. holding void title. As the Supreme Court stated in Yvanova, ‘the bank or other entity that ordered the foreclosure would not have done so absent the allegedly void assignment. Thus `[t]he identified harm — the foreclosure — can be traced directly to [the foreclosing entity's] exercise of the authority purportedly delegated by the assignment’. (Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 937.)
There are also strong policy reasons favoring this approach. A contrary rule would lead to a legally untenable situation — i.e., that anyone can foreclose on a homeowner because someone has the right to foreclose…(citation omitted) Moreover, giving homeowners - - who have the most at stake and the most to lose – the ability to challenge improper loan assignments as being absolutely void will provide a proper incentive to lending institutions to employ due diligence to properly document assignments and confirm who currently holds a loan. ‘The consequences of wrongfully evicting someone from their home are too severe to be left unchecked.’” (Ibid.)

“(Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 929, fn. 4 ["Tender has been excused when ... the plaintiff alleges the foreclosure deed is facially void, as arguably is the case when the entity that initiated the sale lacked authority to do so."].)”

Sciarratta v. US Bank National Assn., 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 219, 247 Cal. App. 4th 552 at 566 (Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate Dist., 1st Div. 2016)

View article as PDFView as PDF


Tags: California
Source:
Sciarratta v. US Bank National Assn., 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 219, 247 Cal. App. 4th 552 at 566 (Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate Dist., 1st Div. 2016)
 

Doctrine of the Law of the Case
“The Supreme Court said in England v. Hospital of Good Samaritan, 14 Cal.2d 791, 795 [97 P.2d 813]:
"The doctrine of the law of the case is recognized as a harsh one (2 Cal.Jur. 947) and the modern view is that it should not be adhered to when the application of it results in a manifestly unjust decision. (United Dredging Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 208Cal. 705 [284 P. 922].) However, it is generally followed in this state. But a court is not absolutely precluded by the law of the case from reconsidering questions decided upon a former appeal. Procedure and not jurisdiction is involved. Where there are exceptional circumstances, a court which is looking to a just determination of the rights of the parties to the litigation and not merely to rules of practice, may and should decide the case without regard to what has gone before. (Messenger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436 [32 S.Ct. 739, 56 L.Ed 1152]; Seagraves v. Wallace, 69 F.2d 163; McGovern v. Eckhart, 200 Wis. 64 [227 N.W. 300, 67 A.L.R. 1381].)"
Also in Gore v. Bingaman, 20 Cal.2d 118, 122, 123 [124 P.2d 17], it is said:
"It is true that the law of the case doctrine is a procedural rule which is generally followed, not because the court is without power to reconsider a former determination, but because the orderly processes of judicial procedure require an end to litigation. In the absence of exceptional circumstances of hardship and injustice the need for attributing finality to considered judicial determinations compels adherence to the previous decision. But the rule should never be made the instrument of injustice. Thus, where the controlling rules of law have been altered or clarified in the interval between the first and second appeal and adherence to the previous decision would result in defeating a just cause, it has been held that the court will not hesitate to reconsider its prior determination.

Particularly is the rule inapplicable where the decision lays down a principle of law for future guidance which is unsound.

Respondent cites cases to the contrary, and urges that there has been no change in the facts and no intervening decision justifying reconsideration. Also it urges that not justice but the determination of controversies is the primary consideration of policy behind the organization of courts, and that this litigation should be brought to an end by a refusal to reconsider the legal question determined in our former opinion. We are not impressed with this argument and believe that we should reexamine the question of law involved in our former opinion in light of the facts now before us and the subsequent decisions referred to hereinafter.”
(emphasis added)
Standard Oil Co. v. Johnson, 56 Cal. App. 2d 411, 132 P.2d 910 (Ct. App. 1942)

View article as PDFView as PDF


Tags: California
Source: Standard Oil Co. v. Johnson, 56 Cal. App. 2d 411, 132 P.2d 910 (Ct. App. 1942)

 

Title
"that title,....is not merely voidable, but void notwithstanding that the documents of title issued...appear facially valid.""....goods are stolen or otherwise obtained against the will of the owner, only void title can result."...."Regardless of the number of transactions, one cannot remove himself from the confines of the rule: A purchaser can take only those rights which his transferor has in the subject goods; a thief has neither title nor the power to convey such."...."a sale by the thief or any other person claiming under the thief does not vest any title in the purchaser as against the owner, though the sale was made in the ordinary course of trade and the purchaser acted in good faith."....Any title derived from a thief, despite an authentic certificate of title, is therefore considered void, not "voidable"....
Suburban Motors v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. 268 Cal. Rptr. 16, 218 Cal.App.3d 1354 (1990)

View article as PDFView as PDF


Tags: California
Source: Suburban Motors v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 268 Cal. Rptr. 16, 218 Cal.App.3d 1354 (1990)

 

Jury Trial and Possession of Land
“Courts, however, in guarding the constitutional rights to a jury trial, have repeatedly held that where the suit should have been, and in substance is, an action for the recovery of the possession of land, the right of a defendant to a jury cannot be defeated by the mere device of bringing the action in an equitable form.”
Thomson v. Thomson, 7 Cal. 2d 671, 62 P.2d 358, 62 Cal. Rptr. 358 (1936)

View article as PDFView as PDF


Tags: California
Source: Thomson v. Thomson, 7 Cal. 2d 671, 62 P.2d 358, 62 Cal. Rptr. 358 (1936)

 

Freedom of Religion
“Freedom of religion is so fundamental to American history that it must be preserved even at the expense of other rights which have become institutionalized by the Democratic process.”
Devin Walker v. First Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 760-028.9, California Supreme Court, 1980

View article as PDFView as PDF


Tags: California
Source: Devin Walker v. First Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 760-028.9, California Supreme Court, 1980

 

Objections
“…under Rule 45(c)(2)(B), CDCR and CCI were required to serve their objections either (a) before the time specified for compliance…or (b) 14 days after the subpoena was served… whichever was earlier.(citations omitted) Here, the objections should have been served on Plaintiff within fourteen days…and they were not. Accordingly, the Court finds that the objections were untimely.
The failure to timely object usually waives objections, although courts have recognized an exception where the responding party establishes unusual circumstances and good cause for the failure. (citations omitted) In this case there has been no showing of unusual circumstance or good cause, and the Court finds the objections have been waived.”
Avila v. Cate, No. 1:09-cv-00918-LIO-SKD PC (E.D. Cal. 2013)

View article as PDFView as PDF


Tags: California
Source: Avila v. Cate, No. 1:09-cv-00918-LIO-SKD PC (E.D. Cal. 2013)

 

Procedural Error
“From this brief review it is apparent that courts are inclined to construe filing requirements liberally in order to assure litigants their day in court, doctrinal theory notwithstanding. (Slawinski v. Mocettini, 63 Cal.2d 70, 72 [45 Cal. Rptr. 15, 403 P.2d 143].) The courts also remain mindful of their constitutional and statutory mandate to disregard at every stage of an action procedural error which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”
Desherow v. Rhodes, 82 Cal. Rptr. 138, 1 Cal. App. 3d 733 (Ct. App. 1969)

View article as PDFView as PDF


Tags: California
Source: Desherow v. Rhodes, 82 Cal. Rptr. 138, 1 Cal. App. 3d 733 (Ct. App. 1969)

 

Amendment of Pleadings
“It is well settled that a court has inherent authority to allow amendment or correction of pleadings at any stage of the proceeding. See Eberly v. Moore, 65 U.S. 147, 1860 WL 9942 (U.S. Tex. 1860) at *8 (‘The equitable jurisdiction of the courts of the United States as courts of law is chiefly exercised in the amendment of pleadings and proceedings in the court, and in the supervision of all the various steps in a cause, so that the rules and practices of the court shall be so administered and enforced as to prevent hardship and injustice, and that the merits of the cause may be fairly tried.’); Suffel v. Bosworth, 95 F.2d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1938) (‘The court may likewise, in its discretion, and after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon such terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars’).”
Fox v. County of Tulare, No. 1: 11-cv-0520 AWI SMS (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2014)

View article as PDFView as PDF


Tags: California
Source: Fox v. County of Tulare, No. 1: 11-cv-0520 AWI SMS (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2014)

 

Timeline and Amending Complaint
“Plaintiffs’ responses to the OSC and their Amended Complaint are untimely and the explanation for their delay is questionable. At the same time, there is no indication that Defendants have been prejudiced by Plaintiffs’ delay. As such, in light of the strong preference for cases to be resolved on the merits, see In re Hammer, 940 F.2d 524, 525 (9th Cir. 1991), the Court will permit and consider Plaintiffs’ late filings, see Applied Information Sciences Corp., v. eBay, Inc., 511 F.3d 966, 969 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007) (district court has discretion to consider untimely papers); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990) (pro se submissions must be liberally construed). Therefore, the Court discharges the OSC, and, in its discretion, accepts Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint for filing. See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), leave to amend should be permitted with “extreme liberality.”).”
Prince v. FREMONT POLICE DEPARTMENT, No. C 13-1366 SBA (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2013) 

View article as PDFView as PDF


Tags: California
Source: Prince v. FREMONT POLICE DEPARTMENT, No. C 13-1366 SBA (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2013)





Void Transfer to Trust
“In this case, however, we believe applying the statute to void the attempted transfer is justified because it protects the beneficiaries of the WaMu Securitized Trust from the potential adverse tax consequence of the trust losing its status as a REMIC trust under the Internal Revenue Code.”
Glaski v. Bank of America, National Association, et. al., 218 Cal.App.4th 1079 [160 Cal. Rptr. 3d 449] (2013)

View article as PDFView as PDF


Tags: California
Source: Glaski v. Bank of America, National Association, et. al., 218 Cal.App.4th 1079 [160 Cal. Rptr. 3d 449] (2013)

 

Judicial Notice
“While a court may take judicial notice of a judicial or administrative proceeding which has a ‘direct relation to the matter at issue,’ a court can only take judicial notice of the existence of those matters of public record…but not of the veracity of the arguments and disputed facts contained therein. Id. (quoting Robinson, 971 F.2d at 248). Similarly, a court may take judicial notice of the existence of certain matter of public record. A court may not take judicial notice of one party’s opinion of how a matter of public record should be interpreted.”
United States v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 300 F. Supp. 2d 964 (E.D. Cal. 2004)

View article as PDFView as PDF


Tags: California
Source: United States v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 300 F. Supp. 2d 964 (E.D. Cal. 2004).

 

Deed of Trust and Trustee
“In Woodworth v. Redwood Empire Sav. & Loan Assn. (1971) 22 Cal. App.3d 347, 366 [99 Cal. Rptr. 373], the court stated as follows: ‘It is well established, however, that a trustee under a deed of trust is not a trustee in the technical sense. Rather, he is the agent of all the parties to the escrow at all times prior to performance of the conditions of the escrow and bears a fiduciary relationship to each of them. His obligation to each is measured by an application of the ordinary principles of agency.’ As an agent, the trustee may be liable for negligence….An agent has the duty to use reasonable skill and diligence and if he violates this duty, he is liable for any loss which his principal may sustain as the result of his negligence. (Dahl-Beck Electric Co. v. Rogge (1969) 275 Cal. App.2d 893 [80 Cal. Rptr. 440].)”
Kerivan v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., 147 Cal. App. 3d 225, 195 Cal. Rptr. 53 (Ct. App. 1983)

View article as PDFView as PDF


Tags: California
Source: Kerivan v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., 147 Cal. App. 3d 225, 195 Cal. Rptr. 53 (Ct. App. 1983)

 

Discovery and Pro Se
“Plaintiff is representing himself pro se, which ‘entitles him to a certain degree of leniency so as to ensure that his case is justly resolved on its merits rather than on the basis of procedural technicalities to the extent possible.’ See Poulakis v. Amtrak, 139 F.R.D. 107, 109 (N.D. Ill. 1991).”
Peinado v. City and County of San Francisco, No. C-11-1799 EMC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2013)


“The parties’ and the court’s time would be better spent resolving the merits of the case rather than dwelling on procedural technicalities in a pro se case where plaintiff has been diligent and appears to be entitled to at least some of the documents he seeks.”
Miller v. Woodford, No. CIV S-07-1646 LKK EFB P (E.D. Cal. May 31, 2011)

View article as PDFView as PDF


Tags: California
Source: Peinado v. City and County of San Francisco, No. C-11-1799 EMC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2013)
Miller v. Woodford, No. CIV S-07-1646 LKK EFB P (E.D. Cal. May 31, 2011)