You are on page 1of 17

t

10
11
I2
T4
15
I6
1B
I9
I]
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
y Gillespie,
ey Gillespie
aintiffs
21
,!!|}
Melody and Courtney Gillespie
c/o P.O. Box 8323
Porterville, California
Telephone: (559) 788-0630
Email : gillespiecourtneyr
@gmail.
com
Melody and Courtney Gillespie
Plaintiffs.,
VS.
l3 ll
Nicklas Hoffinan
,
et aL,
Defendants.
NOTICE OF AND MOTION TO STRIKE
R.ELATED CASE NUMBER PCL 13 8180
RELATED TO EXHIBITS FOR AND DEC-
LARATIONS AND MEMORANDUM OF'DE-
MTJRRER TO DEF'trNDANT'S ANSWER
Case No. 10-237561
Case No. 1 : 12-cv-001 76-IJO-MJS
RELATtrD JUDICIAL NOTICE
3,
TIJLART COLTNTY SUPtrRIOR COIJRT
VISALIA DIVISION
Case No . 10-237 521
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
VACATE/SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DE.
FAULT/DEFAULT JUDGMENT Pursuant to
CCP
$$473
et seq
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AI\D AU-
THORITIES, SUPPORTING DECLARA-
TIOI{S
DATE: June 26,2012
TIME,: 8:30 am
DEPT: 7
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO TI{EIR ATORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 26,2012, at or after 8:30 am in dept 7 at22l Money Blvd. Visalia
California, Plaintiffs and Cross-defendants Courtney and Melody Gillespie will move the court for an order
vacating and setting aside the entry of defaulVdefaultjudgment entered in this action on May 23,2011, and
leave to file the attached proposed verified answer.
This motion is made on the grounds that Plaintiffs/cross-defendants failure to respond to the com-
plaint with the time allowed is due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect and extrinsic fraud
or mistake, as is more fully stated in the declaration filed in support of this motion. This motion will be
based on this notice, all papers and records filed in this action, and the above related actions. the declarations
MOTION TO VACATE/SET ASIDE DEF'AIJLT
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
l2
13
t4
15
T6
tl
18
r9
20
2T
22
23
24
25
26
2l
2B
y Gillespie,
ey Gillespie
!D
of Melody and Courtney Gillespie, memorandum of points and authorities, proposed verified answer, the
copies of which are attached and on such evidence as may be presented at the hearing.
Dated : May 22,2012
Dated : May 22,2012
T,
Melod Gillespi I aintiff/c ro s s - dd fe nd ant
Courtne G i lle sp ie, P I airill-Tf/cro s s- de fendant
MOTION TO VACATE/SET ASIDE DEFAIJLT
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
n
t2
l3
1.1
15
l6
18
19
20
2l
22
23
21
25
26
27
28
U
'''
Jr"
Melody and Courtney Cillespie
c/o P.O. Box 832i
Portervi I le. Cal i forn ia
iVIe lodl' and Courtne,v- G i I lespie
\S.
Nicklas Hof fllan. et al.,
FILEU
,
t i, i'ir ccuiiTY
suP;lllr-ii-.
''lt-l'Jii
I
'
rt
3Al -i
$
ni\.' lslii'l
,i-i
\ l)
Jilj
rii,n't'I'i: llrl:!' ilLII,
U.
\-
TTJLART COUNTY
VISALIA
Plairrtif f s.
STJPTRIOR COIJRT
DIVISIONI
Case No. I 0-23 896 I
NOTICE OF MOTIOhJ TO VACATEi
SET ASIDE ENTRY OF
D EFAULT/DEFA U LT JUDG N,I Ei,iT
Pursuant to CCP
$$
473 et seq
MEMORAI.{DUN,{ OF POINTS OF
AUTHORITIES, SUPPORTIJ\iG
DECLARATIO}.f S
Def endants.
RELATED CASE NTJMBER PCL I38I80
TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
17 ll
.!r-\T
^t,v\r,^rr^r
0ilr ^
t
ll
PLEAST rAKE, NorlcE thar orr
5l l. .z0l l, at or afier
rr r
m) in Dept . 7 at 221
Mooney'Blvd. Visalia California, Plaintiffs and Counter claim defendants Cor,rrlnel'and lvlelodl'Gillespie
rvill nrove the courl for an order vacating and setting aside the entry of defaulVdef-aLrlt
judgment
entered in
this action on May 23,2011, and leave to file the aftached proposed verifled answer.
l-his rnotion is ntade on the grounds that Plaintif ts/cross-def-errdants failure to respond to the
corrrplaint rvith the tittte allorved is duc to rnistake. inadv'er1c-nce. surprise. excusable neglcct. and extrinsic
fl'audorrnistakc,asistrtorefirllystatedirrdeclarationfllccl insupportofthernotion. J'hisrnt'rtionuill bc'
based on this noticc. all papcrs arrcl rccords flled in this action thc declarations of lvlclocll and Couftney'
Gillespie. menrorandurl of points ancl authorities, proposecl r,erifled answer, the copies r"hich are attachcd.
allcl on such evidcncc ils tnili- h* prcscntcc'l at the hearirrg.
(
f)ated:
'
Courltrey'.
fiillispic
Dltccl:
28
llelrlrly :rrrrl ('ourtncy
(J
illc.rgrie
l',O. llur tlJlJ
I'nrtervillc, ('llilirrrrirr
rt
'!g
RITIES
ASIDE
INTRODUCTIOI{
l' ottoraboutMarch23.20l0.NicklasFloffrnan,NickolGerritsnra,andwySocKl
|RUSTflleclan
UNLAwFUL
DETAINER ACTION against Melody and Couftnel Gillespie. In the unlari.tirl
detainer, Floffman conrended that: :
|
'
l the Gillespies had an oral contract to rent bare land ancl rvould not leave. holdins
the propefty under threat and duress.
the unlarvfirl detainer sho,ld to declare the Gillespies renters,
the land sales a-greement lvas of no effect after the parties accepted compensarion
to consurnmate the contfact
| ..4 Hoffinan/Gerritsma rvere entitled to a r.vrit of execution to evict the Gillespies.
t.2
r.3
r5
L2
13
T4
r5
l6
T7
1B
t9
Hoffrnan. Gerritsma needed injunctive and declarator-r'relief. The judge
did not
agree rvith Hoffman/Gerritsma.
Hoffrnan, Gerritsma, and WYSOCKI continued to accept
compensation
for the property, yet demanded eviction. Hoffrnan. Gerritsma, and WySOCKI
TRUST did not prevail. They did not appeal or collateralll attack the rLrling frorn the cour-t in Case
Number PCL 138180.
2' On or abor-rt November 19,2010, Hoffman, Gerrirsrna, and WySOCKI TRUST filed a counrer
clairn against the cillespies in rvhich Hoffma' is contending that:
2'l the Gillespies have an oralcontract to rent bare larrd and uon't leave. hotding the propertr
under threat and dr,rress.
2'2 tlte court to void the contract and make it of no legaleffbct making the Gillespies renters
after accepting conrpensation
to consrrmntate the contract,
2'3 a Writ of e-xecution shoulcl issue for thc Sheriff to evict the Gillespics,
2'4 lloflnran. Gerritsnta necd irrjunctive ancl cleclaratorl' re lic-f . llofflnan. Gerritsrnl. apcl
WYSOCKI ct-rtttittrtc to accept cott.tpc'nsatiort for tlre propen\'. l'loffhran and Gerritsnra are
-'tirrurl
!'tr
- .
sltbpping"' to flncl a clill-crent outconre fbr thc sarnc issucs.
'l'hc
def-endants changcd thc,trnc of'
thetitleoftltelnvstrit.
Insteadof Unlarvfirl Detaincrand[:viction.itisQuiet
litlcanclEjecr'rent.
i. On or abottt August 26,201 0. thc C illespies fi lc' a cornpla irrt for inj Lrnction againsr Floflllan,
Gerritstrta' and WYSOCKI, bccause of the irnpcncling threat olsale of the propcrty that the
Cillespic's luve been buying and paying for, antl have paicl l-or by rvay'of a land s:rles contract.
a' Betw'een the dates of March 23,2010 to August26,20l0. thc Gillespies have suf-fcrecl
tttttclt ltlrassrnent
and rnalicious mischicl'caused by Nicklas llofflnan, causing the
Injtrnctitlrt to bc filccl ntuch laterthan theGillespics hacl intenclccl.
'fhe
harassrlentalcl
20
2l
))
23
21
25
26
27
28
llclrlrl;' unrl
('ourtne
t,
Oillerpic
l'.{). lkrr llJlJ
Portcrvillc,
( laliforrril
U
malicior.rs mischief suffered by the Gillespies became so severe that the Gillespics sousht
relief by way of a Temporary Restrainirrg Order (TRO). The TRO issued on Nlal'27.
2010. On Mayr 28,20l0 Nicklas l-loffman shot orcaused to be shot. the Gillespies' little
'ferrier
dog in retaliation For obtaining the TRO. His harassment and nralicious mischief
becante worse atter the TRO issued, and the Cillespies had to once again seek relief fiom
the court by ua1'of an ORDER TO SFIOW CAUSE for contempt of court. The trial tirr
this was to take place on or about November 12. 2010 in Case Number l0-237521..
On or about October 29.20J0, Hoffman conceded guilt and agreed to a settlenrent.
OnoraboutApril 12,20ll,theGillespiesagainhadtoseekrelieffronrthecourtbecause
of the severity'and life threatening nature of the malicious mischief and harassrnent. On or
abor"rt March l l. 201 l, Hoffinan was shooting at Roxann Davidson and Melod;- Gillespie
r.vitlrahighpor,veredpelletrifle. OnoraboutNlarch 12.20ll,Hot-tmanshotNls.Daridsorr
in the face just
missirrg her eye. Hoffrnan. then yelled out to her, "NEXT TIN'lE IT \\'lLL
BE YOUR EYE'..
The defendants have done many acts to prevent or delay the Plaintiffs liom being able to
receive relief frorn the court, including filing a default action by surprise against the
Plaintiff-s, rvhen Robert Fletcher, the attorney of record rvas ethicallv reqr,rired to notif\ the
Plaintifl-s of the default causing further harassment.
Many of the acts committed by Hoffinan are recorded in MANDATORY JUDICIAL
NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE AND DEMURRER TO CROSS-
COMPLAINT and MEMORANDUM AND DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT O F
DEVIURRER TO ANSWER in the above narned case, as rvell as Case Number l0-2i75l I
and the declaration contained herein.
*
b
L.
d T2
13
l.l
t5
l6
t7
r8
l9
e.
20
))
23
21
25
26
27
I
t.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Ott or about April 15, 201 l. Hc'arings fbr a MO-l-lON f--OR RECONSIDERA-f ION and a \,lOl'lON
I'O STI{IKE AND DITMURRER rvers'scheduled to be heald.
-I'he
NlO'f ION FOR
RECONSIDERAl'lON lr'as denied, horvever, there appeared to be no ruling on the i\lOl-lON
1'O STRIKLl and DEMURRER to thc- Dc'f-endants' cross-cornplaint and ncither nrotit'rn rror the
demurrer was hearcl on the merits.
"Cttliforniu Rules of Court, rule 3.1212
(sI
Prevuilins nurtv to nrepure- Unless the nurties wuive
rttttice or lhe court orders otlrcrwise. the t)urtv Drevuiling on anv motion must, tvithin 5 duys
of the ruling, serve bv unv nrcans authorized bv luw und reasonublv cttlculuted to ensure
delivem to tlrc otlter
portv
or narties no luter thun lhe close of the next business day u
prooosed
order for unproval as conforming to lhe court's order. ll/ilhin live dflvs ofter
service, the olher
Darty or parties
must notify the
prevailing partv
ss to whether or nol lhe
pronosed
onler is srt uDpruved". Tlrc oDnosing nurtv or Darties must slute anv reuson for
disaDDrovul".
2l
")
16
t7
t8
l9
20
2l
22
23
21
25
26
27
28
,llrlutlv arrrl ('rlurtlrc!
(iille
spie
l'.O. lilrr ftJlJ
I'u rtt'r'vi llc, (':rli
firrrria
U
The Plaintiffs never received a rulirrg for tlre rnotions from the prevailing side. nor clid the
Plaintiffs
receive a minute order from tne coun.
On or about May 7
,2011, Plaintiffs went to the courttrouse to examine the file and found that the
l'ile rvas no longer accessible to the Plaintifk, and had been taken by sorneone nanred Robert
Blue' an attorney rvho works at the courthouse. Plaintiffs were told tlrere rvould be no access
to the record fbr 30 days. The Plaintiffs rvere not told what his capacitl, is or uhy N{r. Bluc, *rs
entrusted rvith the record, and rvhy we were de'ied access.
Without the notice of rulings to the nrotions sent to the Plaintiffls,
ptaintiffs
did not knorv rvherher
to appeal or to file a motion for rehearing. and had no record to do either. Neither the rnotion
to strike rrorthe issues of demurrerrvere heard on the merits. No rulingrvas issued. This
created an impossibility
to file a response. The Motion to strike rvas ciucial to tiling of an
answer due to a fatally flarved counter clairn. The issues of the counterclaim had aiready been
litigated and adjudicated, coming under the doctrine of res judicata
and estoppels. To this da_r.
Plaintiffs have never received a ruling on the motions, or tlie demurrer. and ihe
defendants/counter-claimants
failed to follorv Calitbrnia Rules of Court. CR 3. l3 l2 a.. SLrpra.
Califorqia Civil code of Procedure (CCP:
586kt\(il
,,(at
In the following cases the sonte
,o-"n"dirrgt
tlroll bn hod. o,rd iodgorrnt tholl b" ,"rrrl"rirl i,, ilr, ,onrc ntonner, os fillte
ffi
iiiirnffirirrn,,
orti-qn of the comotaint within the tinre oilowed bviiiiiffi
cki:ii;;i;ri,rffi,
sustainecl or being thqn
^encling.
:
No ruling rvas given by the prevailing paft)', so the Plaintiff-s could move fonvard.. and CCp
I 019.5 rvhich states:
"(o) llrlrun o,rrrtion it grnrtt"tl
o, ,l",rird, ,rnlrss tlru
"orrrt
otherwise orders tt0tice of the
G
-)
J.
4.
T2
13
14
l5
coltrt's decision or order sholl be given
hv the oreviilirtg oartv tu alliiilt
nrr,rrrrnrt, ir, ,lrn otorrrr",
orrrrirlrd ir, ,lri, ,lrorrur, ,rrrlur, ,rorkn is wuived btttll
6.1 Plaintiffs would be entitled to the orclcr, becilLrst: Plairrtiffi
and defcttdants/cottnter
claimants firilecl to clo soPluintiff-s
thc ordcr' \vhich the prevailing party is supposccl tp serye.
tirnc Ior flling att answer or appeal dtlcs llot stil;t ltltil thc
part ies.
ftrties or their
ilrties in onen
court und is enterer! in the minutes.',
Plaintiffs never \vaiv'ed that notice.
5' l']laintiffs dtl not know if the Demurrer rvas elver rulcd upon. noticc- \r,as not
giren
br rhe
clc-fbndant/cross-complainants.
Notice was not,uvaivecl at an\.'tirne, by.plaintiffs. and
plaintitls
\!ere very aclatnant in court that the dccisiort rvoulcl be appealeci. Plaintil'f's rectuc-stecJ thc orclcr..
I)ttrsuatrt to
"C8,Rule
3.1319 (cl)
Failure of nrcv:riting nartv to
prcnare
Dloposerl orrter-If the
r:evailing
nartv fails to prepftre
and submit a Dro oscd ord!'lgll-11quired hr. {a} and
(t}
:tllove, and othcr partv
nray do so."
(r.
subrnitted an ordcr to thc cour-t
cilnnot r"ltovc forr.r arcl w'ithorrt
and has f?riled to do so.
'l'lrc
rulings are rcceivccl trr all
2B
*
On or about May 20,201 l, the Det'endants/cross-complainants
filc'cl a I{EQUES'f FOR EN'|RY
OF DEFAULT.
The clerk stated to Plaintiffs on May 27
,201
I that tht' defirulr had been
lodged in by the clerk on May 23, 201 I .
Orr or about May 24,2010, Plaintiff's received the copy of request tbr e-ntr1' of default . Ethically
the def'endants/cross-cornplairrants
were supposed to notify Ptaintiffs of their intent to lodgc. in
a request for entry of defatrlt. The Defendants failed to do so. Defe-ndants/cross-complainants'
attorrley. Robert Fletcher, thiled to call Plaintiff rvith a warning of his intent to file a default.
The firilure to notifi,violated tlie due process requirement.
"Even legitimate toctics nmst sonrctinrcs
.yield
to the only goul that justifies
the very existence
tLr rtt..r. rurtrctrnter.ytetu ro ute oltly go(Il utotJustuies ilte very existenc
of our judicinl
system; i.e., the resolutiort of our citizeni tlisputes and tlte udministratiort
of tt of
justice" (Brown
, Preslev of so. csliforniilrggg) 213 cA3d 612, 620, 26J cR 7zg, 764. fn.
3- the notion tltst ours is s "t{os-eot-clog bu g business" governed by tlre 's y' tlte "lnw of the jungle e iunsle"
*
7.
8.
o
T2
r3
t1
15
t6
t7
r8
l9
sltottld be curtailed, not rewardetl", and the due pro-.ss requiriment: "Tlti purposi is to give
defendant
'one lost chonce' to responrl, knowing e-xactly w,hat judgnrrrrt
rriy ie entered if tte
or she
fails
to respond. Absent such statenrent, defenclant lscks notice of ttie actunl tiatii4.
threatened;
so thst o,ry dertrult judgment
is void. Stevenson r,. Turner (7g7gt
94 CA3d 3Ii,
156 CR 499, s02"
9' Def-endants/cross-complainattts'
counter claim is fatally flarved because defendants filed the same
larvsuit filed January 7,2010 in another superior court. The Defendants knorv it u,as fatally.
flarved and subject to to the doctrine ofresjudacata and the doctrine ofestoppel. The
defendants took the same complaint from PCL 138180, changed the name from unlar.vful
detainer to quiet title action, alleged the same facts rvhich were over-ruled in the Superior
Cotrrl in Porterville. The def'endants took the same complaint and then went forunr shopping.
Quiet
Title Actions: It is provided by statute that . in quiet title actions.
"...The court sltull not enter iudgnrc\t hv defuult but shull in all cases rettuire evidence o
plulrtti{fs
title and hea, such eridence as mav he oi/eretl resnecliiffi
defendunts...
" CCP 764.01 0
l0'
'
-fhe
defendants knorv they woulcl not prevail in the above namecl case. because the ansrver ro
plaintiffi cotnplaittt, prescnted b1'defbnclants, are fhlse staternents. contraclictins earlicr
testimorrv itt,previotts lrcarings, rvith alterecl clocunrents attachecl.
'l'hc
clef'enc'lants cr..rr-rrrtcr
clairn is a rchashirtg ola previous larvsuit tiled against plaintiffs irr rvhich they ctid not prerail.
and are estopped fi'om string it oLrt a-gain. Plaintif k ancl counter tlef'endants havc a nreritt'rrious
cause oI action.
ll. Withtlteentryofclefnultdet'cndantsha'"'enorvturnedthecluiettitleactiopintoapunlaryfulclctai.cr
andeviction.thesanteasPCL"l3Sl80.
l'hisfactrvillcauseamyriaclof'rnorelarvsuitsasthc
default neither quiets thc title, nor voids thc cluties of the contract on which
dcf-cndants/cottnterclaintants
have received ancl continue receiving compe nsaticln. Nicklas
llof'fman's natne is not on the grant dced. Courtney Gillespic.'s nanrc is not on the grant deed,
2l
2A
))
23
21
25
26
27
l5
9
10
11
t2
13
1l
16
17
r8
r9
20
22
23
21
25
26
27
28
2l
5
6
t v
but both are trustces of WYSOCKI TRUST, the name that is on the grant deed, and thc
property rights are protected rvithin the trust. Nickol Cerritsma is merely a norninee fbr thr.'
trust, does not control the property r,vithin the trust, and the trust control is shared equally
bctrveen lloffrnart and Gille'spie. . This fact was established in the contract signed by Nicklas
l'loffirran and Courtrtey Gillespie. The original contract does not have a hand rvritten
"AGREEMENT
l'o TERIV|S" on it. This was an addition added by Def'endanr Hoffhran in arr
attempt to sr,rpport his allegations in the anslver and counter clairn. Hoffman is afternpting ro
take cornplete cotttrol over tlte trust, push Gillespie out and keep all thc- proceeds for himself'.
.
ISSUES OF LAW AND FACT
ll' lf Plaintiffs/Counter-def-endants
MOTION TO STRIKE is derried. Plaintiff's/Counrer-defendanrs
nu$t tnswer tlte conwlaint witltin whstever time is ordered hv the court unless a clenturrer
tyus
filecl concurrentlv, therewith snel is still nending,
(CCP gSS6(d(J),
but Plaintiffs/Cottnter-defendants never received an order fi'om the court or a rLrling on the
Demurrer.
Unless notice is wuived, the nrevailing
purtv
is required to
give
written notice of the court's
ruling snd Pluintiffs/Counter-defenclortts' tinrc to otrsrver is nrcctsured front ser,,,ice of suclt
Plaintiffs/Counter-defendants never received notice and therefbre have not defaulted on the
ansrver. Tlie Det-endants/cotttrtet'-claimants are the ones that have defaulted on follou in-s the
rules of court. the statutes, and hal'e violated constitutionalh'guaranteed rights to due process.
13. Defendants/counter-claimants,
have violated ethical obligations. Defendants/counter-claimants
kttolr'horv and
"vhere
to contact Ptaintifft/counter defendants and had an ethical obligation to
rvartr before requesting entn'of default. The Califbrnia Suprerle Court s'amed that tlris kincl
of violatiorr rvould not be condoned by the coufis:
""Tlre quieE speed of plaintiffs' attorney in seeking a defauJ.t
judgmenE
without the knowTedge of defendanE's cottnsel. is not
eommended." Smibh w. Los Angeles Bookbinders' Unjon No, 63
to be
(7ess)
733
CA2nd 485, 500, 284
p2d
Ig4, Z0l
"-gven
TegiEimate tactjcs must sometjmes yield to the only
goaL that justjfjes
the very existence of our judiciaT
system; i.e.,
the reso-l.ution of our citizens disputes and the adsninistratioa of
justice" (Brawll
v Presley of So. CaLifornia(7989) 2L3 CAid 61"2, 520,
26L CR 779; 764, fn. 3 - the notion that ours is a
..dog-eat-dog
business" gowerned by Ehe
"7aw
of the jungle"
should be curtaj Led, noE
rewarded.
l{. lrt tlrc absettce ol'a prior lvarning oldelault, corrrts arc inclinecl to grant CCP
-17,1 rnotions to sct
asidc detirults.
See Snrith l'. Los An elcs Rookbinrles
' LInion No. 63 1955) 133 CA2(l "186, 500. 28{ P2d
l9{,201. ancl Pearson v Continental Airlincs 1 970 I I CA3d 6lJ. 6l
g
9g cR 953. 957.
28
]lclotll' alrrl
(iourtrrcy
(Iillcspic
l'.O. Itor llJlJ
I'urtrrv illc.
('ali
furnia
15.
v
The purpose is to give the ctefendunt
"one lusl cltouce" kt responcl, knowing a.tactly whot
iudgment
may he entereil if he/she
fails
to respottd. Absent suclt statentent, tfte defcnilunt
Ittcks notice of the actual liilility lhreutenul, so thnt ony default jtulgntent
is voitl.
Stevenson v. Turner
(1979t
94 CA3d 315,319, I56 CR 499, 502
RELIEF FROM DEFAULT
-
The trial court has broad discretion to vacate the
judgmcnt
and;'or r6e
clerk's errtry of dctatrlt that preceded it. Plaintitfs/counter-defendants
have established
sr,--runr.ls
fbr relief, and havc- fbllorved the proper procedure.
RELIEF FOR "MISTAKE.
INADVERTENCE,
SURPRISE OR EXCUSABLE NEGLECT,'
(CCP
5473):
The court is entpowered to relieve fi portJt
"ttpon such ternrs as n o), be just
. . .
from
aiudgnrcnt,
dismissal, oiiler or other pro"otili,rg tuk)n against Itinllter thiouglt Itis/lter
mistuke, inudvertence,
surprise, or e"rcusubre negreci,, ccp
si73,
para 3.
The reference to'judgrnent . . .order or other proceedings"
allows relief both from dethulr
judgments
and from the entrv of default that precedeA itl tt also includes any step taken in a
case rvhether by the couft or by one of the partie s:
,,Att\,yl1i1tg
done
from
tlie conunencenrenl
totheterminatiottisaproceedittg."
ZelterinovBrow'rr(Igit)xiCe3ll0gz,
lt0s.tCnzrt
222, 227
,MISTAKE
-
Relief nnl he gronted on u showittg of mistake b1, o part1,. Suclt nristake nut1. be
one offuct or luw', but itr either cuse, it must be muterial. fuIistake offoct: Relief under
CCPS473 is proper where defendnnt as to somefrtct nmterial to the tiefenclnnt's lufi'to
respotrtl by reosott of which defendant
failed
to nmke s tintely ,rtporir. Mistoke of luw, must
be e-rcusable, reloting to a poittt of taw thot is "contplex'ilnd clebutsble. Mitter v. Cin' of
Hermoss Beoch (/,993r
I2 CA4ttr It IB, 1136, t7 CR2cl
!0g,
420.
Plaintiffs believed that the time for ans\\'er did not starl until the order of the court uas
received. Plaintiffs relied on Rtrles of Court CR rule 3.1212 (d.
CR Rule 3.1319
(dt, (CCpt
586(uI(3t, CCP I0I
g.S
und CCP 764.010. and for the other side to follo\\'the rulles,
-fhe
coutt t!as not clear on
'uvhat rvas ruled on, because the jud-ue
rvas in a hurr\. for an appointnrept.
No order \\'as ever received by the Plaintif fs. The Plaintiffs could not act rvithout a court order
'l'lte
record rvas secreted arvay fiom public scrutiny,by'an attorney named Robert Blue. and
Plaintif ls rvere denied access to the record. so that tlrere rvas no abilitl'tbr
plaintiffs
to obrain ir
rulirtg. Afier talking to the cotttl clerk rvho keeps the recorcls, Plaintiffs beliered no acti\ir\
could be taken ott thc case rvhile the records w'erc secretcd. Plaintiffi believed this rroulci bc a
denial to dtre process because if one partv filcd in papers rvithout the others knorr.ledge.
sttrprisc u'ottld take place. Plaintilfs coulcl not take the nrotions rrp to appeal
g'it6out
thc ruli's
tnandated to be given by the def'endants. rvho apparenth, prevailecl, accorcling to CKl.p!]!1g/
Plaintiffs rve're sttrpriscd by the defhult having rcceived no court rulinss on the Nlotion to
Strike and Dctrrttrrer. l-his would inflLrence horv Plaintitfs neecled to respond to def-enc.la'ts'
cotrntcr claittt. This lclt the Plaintitfs rvith the justifiability
of the failure to dc.rcrnline the
correct larv. Anderson v. Sheinrnt,
16.
17.
T2
l3
1-l
15
r6
T7
IB
l9
2l
20
1)
23
21
25
26
2l
cA3d 3 53 360 243 CR 6t7 62 I.
fu[rCorntick v. Bourd o ,Sr
a
ervts0rs 1988 I9tl
I
10
1l
13
14
l5
16
t7
l8
l9
20
2l
22
23
2.1
25
26
27
28
Ilclutly lrrtl ('ourtrrey
(i
ille slric
It.(). lf or flJlJ
l'ur'{ervillc, ( ialilirrnil
T2
IT
V
l8' E,X"f RINSIC FRAUD OR MISTAKE; This motion is madc becausc of thc flagrant
violation of the cor,rrt rules, and statutes by the defendants. The def'endants subrnitted an
answer to PlaintifFs complaint stating that Plaintiffs have no rights, title, or interest in the
property,
and tlren attaching lalsiFred copies of the originalcontract l-lotlman and Gillespie
sig'ed. In defendants counter clainr the def'endants purport that:
l8.l Plaintif fs har.e made payments,
18.2 have developed the land and ntade irlprovement,
I 8.-l have an oral agreemelrt to be renters after developing the land. rnakin_q pal,ments
l8'4andthendecictingagainstbuy'ingtheland.
Accordingtothedef-errdantstheplaintiff-s*ere
strpposed to initiate and pa1'fbr the subdivision of the propefty,, br:t \\.ere nei'er purchasers
of the property. Plaintiffs refused to sign a rental agreement. rvhich, accordins to
def-endant denied sorne kind of right. Defendants are stilltaking monev on the original
contract, and claim that Plaintiffs have no ri-9hts, title, or interest to the property,. Houerer.
def-endants have filed a quiet title action and ejectment against alleged renters. instead of
an unlarvful detainer action and eviction. The defendants'proof of title is that there is a
grant deed ri'ith WYSOCKI TRUST narne on it, Nickot Gerritsma's signature as a trustee.
bLrt Nicklas Hoffman's name is not on the grant deed. Both Nicktas Hoffinan and
Courtney Gillespie are trustees fbr WYSOCKI TRUST. but neither name is on the
_eranr
deed. The reason defendants have filed a quiet title arrd ejectnrent action against
plaintift\
as alleged renters instead of an unlalvful detainer action is because on or about Nlarch 23.
2010. the defendants did not prevail in an adjudication against Plaintiffs as alleged renrefs.
The court fbund instead that there had been a contract and Plaintiffs \\'ere not renters.
No''v. tlte def'endants ltave attentpted extract from this court a different rulins as if it 11as
nerv issttes and nerv' lnatter,
'rvhen
it clearly is not. Af,ter the motiorr to strike
g,as
presellted
to the court, against def'endants'counterclaipr.
the defendants knor,. tSat tleir
counterclairn is fzrtall,v flarved, and could never be worr on the merits. Therefbre. br
citltcr e.rtrirtsic fl'atrd or tnistake. the def'endants dicl not follor,, the rules causins thc
plainti fl's to inadveftentl.l. delau lt.
"A lriul court ltus irtherent equitlt power undar whiclt, apurtfrcm statutor),autltrtritl', it nru_t'
grunl relief
from
u defoult judi;nrcnt
ohtuitrctl through e-rtrinsicfruud or nistske. ll'hile the
goundsfor an equitahle acliott to set uside a defirult juilgnrent
ure conrntottll,stuted us heinil
those of e-rtrinsicfruud or mistuke, lhe ternrs nre given o very brourl nrcuning *'hich ttnds to
encontposs ttll circuntslurtces thut deprive an udversory offuir notice. . whethcr or not lltose
circunutunces wottltl qualify usfraudulent or misluken in the stricl seilse. . Bcnnell
y.
Hihernia Bunk,
ft9561 47 Cal.2d 540, 5Sg, See otso Carroll v. Ahhott lttborut*ir, (tgg2
32
CuL 3d 892' 901-?02, and Witz v. t,unkoskv
(1966)
63 Cul,. Zd Slg, 35i5;.
"lVhere the unsuccessfttl party has heen preventedfrom e-rhibitingfully his cuse, hyfntud or
dcception pracriced
on him by his oppo,rent, us by keeping him aiiy
fi,tm
court, u-fulse
28
\lclcrly ilnd
('rlurtnev
(
Jillespitr
l'.{). l}or llJlJ
{
promise of o compronise, or where the defendunt never hud knowledge of the suit, being
kept in ignorunce by the ucts of the plaintiff, or where on attor,rey
fraudulently
or without
authority ossumes to represent a porty ottcl connives ot his defeut; or *'here the attorney
regularly employed corruptly sells out ltis client's interest to the other side, -these, ancl
similsr cases wlticlt sltow tltot there has never been a resl contest in the triul or hearing of
the cose, ore reilsonsfor whiclt o rrew suit nny he susttrined to set oside untl unnul the
fornrer
judgment or decree, und open the cuse
for
o new ond a
fuir
lrcnring." United Stutes
v. Throckmortuott
(18781
98 U.S. 61,65-66.
"...The court shall not enter iudgment bv default but shall in all cases require evidence of
nlaintiffls title and hear such evidence as may be offered resrlecting claims of anl' of the
defendants..." CCP 764.010
The defendants filed a quiet title action and are not entitled to a default according to statute.
10. Sustainins arl entr of default arld def'ault action violates doctrine Lrf Judicial Economy The entr\
of a det'ault rvould not sustain a quiet title action, to quiet the title. and detennine the rights of
the parlies. Instead this rrould cause a myriad of further lausuits to cotttinue to establish the
rights of all of the individuals involved.
3l . The counter complaintants are not entitled to arrother
judgment
on tlte same issues in a prer iotrs
la*'sr-rit involving the same parlies.
As generully understood, "[tJhe doctrine of res
judicatu gives certuirt conclusive effect to a
fornter
judgnrcnt in silbsequent litigntion involving the sunrc controvers)'." (7 lVitkin, Cal.
Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Judgntent,
$
280, p. 820.)
The doctrine
"ltus
a double uspect" (Totllturtter v. Snith (1934) 219 CuL 690,695.) "Irt its
prinrury uspect," conmnnly known us claint preclusiott, il "operutes
as u bur ttt the
nruintenunce of u second suit between the sante parties on the sunrc cause ttf acliott.
[Citatiott.l"
(Clurk v.'Lesher (1956) 46 Cul.2d 874, 880.) "Itt its secondurr ospect,"
contnnnl-y know'tt us colluterul estoppel, "[tlhe prioriudgment...'operutes' " itr "u second
srrit... buseil on u different cuuse of actiott... 'us un estoppel or conclusit'e uliudicutirttr us
to such r'.xlres in the second action us ,eere uctuully litiguted und deternined in the
first
uctiort.'
ICitatiort.l"
(Ihid.)
"The prerequisite elenrcntsfor upplyitrig tlrc doctrine b either urr enlire cuuse of uction or
ottc or nnre issuas ure thc sunre: (l) A cloim or issue nilsed in the present uctiott is identicttl
to n cluim or issue litiguteil in u prior proceeding; (2) the prior procaeding resulled in ufinul
jtttlgnrcnt
on-the nrcrits; and (3) the party ulluitrst whom tlrc doctrine is heing osserted *'us rr
purt! or in prit,it-y,w,ith u purtJ) to the prior protrorfirg.
lCitutions.l"
(Brintort t'. Bunkers
Pensiorr Services, Inc. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4tlt 550, 556.)
Plairrtift!/coupter-clef'endalts claim that def'endzurts couttter claittt contaitls both prcrcqtrisitc
elernents fbr applying the doctrine of estoppels/res
judacata.
'endant's
cluim ruises a thresholtl issue thut we huve not
yet4ecided: whetlfu ect o
the res iudicutu doctrine "even upplies to ftrrther nroceedings itt the sunrc Iititltrtitttt.
JCitutiotr.l"
(People
v. Memro
(1995\
I I Cul.4th 786, 821.) As lhe court observed in
Mitchell,
"ltlhe
hotlitionul upnlicution of such doctines lisl to 'successive nrosecutitttts'
/citatinzl or rulings from a former action
Lcitationl."
(Mitchell.
supra. 8l Cal.App.4th at pL
147- 148.)
$
J
19.
t0
u
T2
13
1-l
15
t6
t7
t8
l9
20
2l
))
23
2"1
25
26
27
22. De
$
{r
ourt
iudsrrrents cstablish the larv thtt "
ffi*r,",
atrer ad i ud i ud icated.' "
Dep!-of Water & Por.r er r,
Cir. tggh
977 F .2d 270 (Bailin
de fendant
courts from other staies have routinely applied co I latcral
proceecli,r*rs
in thq sarne- action" Peo le t'.
J-he purposes
ef
the double
,er[ap.
We
have erplained tlrat the
purDoses
insl ircorur
iudgrnents r.vhich qnclerrnine
the
i's a
pe,jio,.,
fr.or. t fi'orrr
be irr g h arassed b\ \'e\atious I iti lation.
[Citation.]" 0reople
t . Ta],lor ( lg7.l) l2-Caljcl
6g6
6e5 )
, ,SimilarlY.the
high court has explained that the purposes
of the double jeopard,
!l.l_u9r
pr.t..uing ",h" in,.gri,l' of u finuriudg*.nFJUniGd
s*r", y.
Scoft
(
r978)
clause
8?'12)
und p.ot.cting indiui,iualt "frotn tlie hurutimentlnd n=*tion of unbo*d.I
4i7 L,5_
litiqatiorr."
t6
11
LI
r8
l9
20
2l
The higlr coLrn has also observed that
.-[a]
prinrar,r purpose
senu,ed" bl.the double eo
p
arcir
g11,]r"-pr.r"ruing,h. finulir),ofjudg'r.nrr-"ir
ukin aI* *rr,ed by the docrrines of res
rudi"atu and collat"rul ertopper." (Crirt u. Br"tt
097g) 437 U.s 2g. 3i.)
23' Courts to determine the rights of purties ure un integrul purt of oursystenrof goverrrntetil.
It is
iust
rts important tltot there should be a p!uce to-eni as tttat tlrcri stroulilie u place to begirt
litigation' After u party hus his day in court, with opportunity to present lris evitlertce and ltis
view of tlrc luw, a colluterul uttttck upott the decisiiti as to jurisiictiott
tltere rettderel nterel_t.
retries the issue previously
determined. There is no reusot, to e.ypect thut lhe second deci,sigrt
*'ill he nutre sutisfttctorl'tltutr
tl,"Jirtt.Strttr.
Cotttirtr, SOs US'tAS, tzt-z - i,iro,r* Cur,i
193I
24' fhc Plaintifti irrvoke the doctrirre of Judicial Estoppclasainst
the coupterclairn. \\,hile tlre sanre
issttes of PCi- 138180 are the satne, the def-:ndarrts lravc contraclictecl prerious tc-stinronr in
thcir coLtttter contplaint. See MANDATORY
JtJDtclAI- NOI'lcl,l oF case Nurnbcr. tig l
g0
IN SUPPOR]'OF
PI-AIN-I'IFITS'
N,IOI'ION 1'O S-fI{IKE N ND DIJN,ITJI{RER TO
I)lrFIlN DAN'l'S' CROSS-COVIpLA
IN'f .
"-l'hc
cqtritablc cloctrine ol'juclicial cstoppcl can bc ilivokecl to prcvent a part' fi.rr takirrg u
pc)sition contrary to one the party aclvanced in prior litigation.
-flre
purposc of the iloctripc has
bcc'tl statecl in rrtultiplc', but substitntially sirnilar, fbrrns: to "protect the integrity of thc jtrclicial
process," Juckson v. Courytv qf Los Angeles: to',protecr against a litigant pt"1:i,lg f|st ald
Itltlse rvitlt the courts"; and to inrplernent "gcncral consicleritions
of the orderl.r- aclrnirristratiorr
ofjtrsticc and regard fbr tlrc dignitv ofjuclicial proceeclings,"
prillinran
v.
(Jttitel
Air Lincy,
Iuc.
___t!--_
))
/)
2.4
25
26
27
2n
l9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
)lclotlt lnrl
('ourtrre y
(iillcspie
l'.O. lhr llJ?J
I'ortcrville. ('llifrrrrril
{
CONCI-,USION
The def'endants have purposely harassed the Plaintiffs rvith the apparent intent to drain physical,
llnancial andemotional resource-s, lossofdaysatrvork.. Thishascausedmultiplecouftfilings,much
litigation, and 3 larvsuits in I year. The nearly daily harassrnetrt has prevented timeliness in the above
natned case. The liling of the defhult rvas another nleans of ltarasstnent to prevent Plaintifts frorn having
the opporlunity to do depositions and discovery as is necessar\'. in the above named court. prior to trial.
The fact that the rttles as laid out by the legislature hare not been fbllo'uved by the def'errdants now have
caused nlore resources, tilne, energv, finnni"s to be expeuded to have the eutry ofdefault set aside and anr
default judgrrent
vacated. The Plaintiffs inadvertenth'made IV{istake in fact and larv, believing the statutes
coulcl be relied upon and the det'endants would be required to follorv the rules also. Also. the defendants
are not entitled to a default judgrnent
on their counter-clainr because of the f-acts that a
Quiet
title action
uas filed, the issues u'ere alreadv litigated and adjudicated in arrother couft. invoking the doctrine of res
judicata.
and estoppels. The fbcts plead to in the counter complaint are inconsisterlt to the facts testified trr
bl,thedeferrdantsinanothercase.CaseNumberPCLl3SlS0. Forthecourltoissueajudgmentontlie
def'endants'couutercomplaintw'ouldbeafhilLrretoprotecttheintegrityofthejudicialprocess. \\'hatcourt
judgnrent rvould have the abilitl'to stand? The default
judgnient
in the later cour1. orthe
jLrdgment
of the
court that heard and adjudicated the matter on the merits. A default
judgment doc-s not quiet title. The
def'endants are trf ing to get an unlalvfirl detainer enforced in the above named court w'ith a default
jLrdurnent.
not quiet the title.
The Plaintitfs did act in due diligence to obtain the ruling of,the court by checking the court record.
only to find that the case file- had been secreted by the clerk to an attorne) unknorvn to the Plaintif'fs, i\lr.
I{obert Blue.
'f
he clerk statecl that the Plaintifts
'uvould
not have access to the courl file fbr at least 30 da1s.
The judge
did not hearthe lVlotion to strike and the Demurrer on the merits. arrd he did not rule on the
Motiorr to Strike and the Dernurrer, leaving the Denrurrer still pending.
-fhe
tinre to ans\\er does not start
trntil tlte Dernurrer is rulcd upon and all parties are served the rulin-rI. The recluest firr entrv of detault *as
pre nraturc and c.lonc through extrirrsic fiaud or by rnistake ol-thc dcfl'ndarrts.
Plaintif'f's have rerltrcstcd to har,e the rncrits of the above nanrccl case triccl b.v a
jurl
. and Plaintif i-s
are cntitlcd to a
jury hcaring.
'l
hc Appellate courts are irrclincd to al'firnr orclcrs granting relicl'ti'orrr clciltrlt
because the larv favors trial on thc rncrits, lvhenever possiblc. tltus even rvhere rclief is not tnatrdatorl , i.c..
rvhereno"attorneyaflrdavit ol'firult"ist'iled,rninirnal cvidenccol'excuse isenottghtosttpporttheortlcr
on appeal.
"ll/hen u part)t irr dcfuult trroves prontplly to seek rclief, ver_t'slight evidencc is requircd lo justifl'
t triol court's order sctlitrg uside u dcfitult."
(Shunrhlin
v
243CR 902,905: Misic v. Seears
(/,995)
37 CA4th I149. I154,44 CR2il 100, 102-103 (citing te.ut)
*)
J
,+
8
9
10
tl
l2
t3
1.1
)
15
16
t7
18
il
1l
15
t7
r8
r9
2l
20
22
23
21
25
26
?7
"t
J
[:or tltcsc reasons' tlte entry of default and default judgment
shoutd be set aside and vacated, ancl
thc cotrrt should do just
that. If the court fails to grant this motion Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed. and
rrill not be gc'rod tbrjudicialecotlomy,
and rvould deteriorate the integrity of the previous court's ruling and
intcgrity of the judicial
process.
'fhe
def-endant should be sanctioned fbr forum shopping.
PRAYER
wHEREFORE,
Melod.v and Courtney Gillespie pray for the follorving Judgrnent and relief:
I. The court allorvs leave to Plaintiffs to file the ans\r,er attached herein;
2. Tlte Court grants the Motion to Set Aside the entry of default and Vacates thc- orders, rulinss.
j
trdgrnents fbr default:
3. The Court re-opens proceedings fbr Entry or presentation of fufther docurnentary evidence
presented in Exhibits Accornpanying this IVlotiorr, and/or
4. Completes the Revierv of the Case as required un Administrative Rule-s of Coufi,and Case
Management rules and Procedures, and:
5. The coutl sanctions the def-endants for premature entrl of the default and failure to fbllorv court
ru tes.
6.
'fhe
court grants attorney/counsel fees of trvo thousand dollars and costs
tu'o hundred dollars
7 . And any other relief that the court deerns f-it.
VERIFICATION
I declare under the penalty of perjLrry under the lar,vs of the State of Calitbrnia that the tbregoing is
true and correct.
10
t2
l3
T1
\lclod)' Gi llespic.
of flling this rnotiorr of
A.D. 201 1
'
-//'
16
f:recutecl at Porterville. Cali{brnia on this
Corlrtncy Gillespic.
183 lN. L)meStrect.
Portervi I le. Cali {ornia
Corrcspondence [,oL:at ion :
I).O. Box 8323
Portcrvillc. Calif ornie 9i 25I
dav o t'
28
t2
l1
T2
13
l.l
l5
r6
l7
1B
r9
20
2l
23
22
21
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION
of Melody Gillespie
IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONI TO SET ASIDE/VACA-TE
.\
5
I- Iv{elod1' Gillcspie declarant hcrein cto hereby declare
purstlant to the lar,vs o f Thc State o [' Calitbrnia that the
thc bcst cl t' ntt' o\\'n rcscetrch in fonnation
ancl ,knor,vledse
basccl upon bclie I, I belier,'e thenr true:
and state under penalty of periur\
follor,r'ing is true and correct. to
and undcrstanding;
as to thosc
I atn a Plaintiff irr this cilse' over the age of nrajoritv.
knolviedgc of the fbllon'ins nratters of fact and lall'. I anr
called Llpoll. and r,r ill testifi' Llpon tl-re fbllor.,n,ing rlatters if
and have direct personal
competent to testify if
called upon.
husband. Courtncr
prcvent r-rs f-rorn
10
2' On N{arch 23. 2010. w.e u'ent to trial on an unla*'tll detainer action initiated b1,
FlofJinan. Gerritsma. and \\'YSOCKI TRUST. Flot'fman/Gerritsma
did not prevail.
ancl
the rr-rling vl'as in favor of the defendants. u'ho are the Gillespies. Hoftmar/Gerritsma
did not appeal.
3' Hof'fman has perfbrrned
many acts of malicious mischief and harassment tor,vard the
Gillespies, to prevent the Gillespies fiom obtaining relief in court. to disturb the sleep of
the Gillespies,
'ul'ho are obligated to show' up fbr rvork consistently for pay in order to har e
the necessities of life. Flof1man's behavior has been so bad and at times life threatenine
that the Gillespies have had to file fbr a restraining order and have had to appear in court 3
different times for ner.r'actions upon the same case because of his malicious behavior. The
Gillespies shotrld have gone to court more often. but becar"rse of the above named case. thc-
Gillespies'nl'ere
trf ing desperately'' to get in the motions and repll's to maintain our position
in the abol'e natued case. I beiieve that Hof-tman has macle 2 unsuccessfirl attempts on n1\.
lit'e.
-+
I-lol't'man's acts of nrarlicious rnischief are- c-ommittcd to destrol in-u my.
Gillcspie and my'sell'physically..
flnancially'. to nrake us honreless. ancl
bcing ablc to obtain rclicf in the coLrrt.
5. llollhlan's attc'tltpt is to makc us erppcar as rcntcrs alicr rrc havc bccn pa;,ing 6 y'cars on
thc original lancl contract agrcernent.
'l'hc
clct'enclant's cross cornplaint fbr
euiet
"l'itle
and
ejectment. is thc'second tirne in er year that IIot'fman has attempted to sue my husband anci
I as renters. unsuccessflllv.
(t.
'l'he
first coLtrt rulcd that ttrcre \\'as a corrtract to buy propcrty that w'as not a rcntiil
agrcement anr.l that nry husband,ancl I are not rentcrs.
7. Iior this cotlrt to cntcr a dcfauIt ou thc silnlc issucs would
ttl thc Gillcspics. r.vhtl \vould losc a onc hLrndrccl thousand
c;lLlsc great encl irrcparablc hanll
dollar investrncnt, rcquirc grcat
r3
2{}
22
2'+
25
26
27
I
T
c\pcnse to move the large buildings already on the property (thcrc are seven of thept) as
rvell as all the improvements that the Gillespies have done to the property, causing the
trnjust enrichment of Flof'fman/Gerritsma. This rvould caLlse at lcast another 2 or more
lar,vsuits involving thc same partics to be issued. This would violatc the doctrine
of iudicial
economy.
In thc current counter claim dcl'endants are requesting the same relief as in the Case
Nunlbcr PCL 1 3 8 180. and docs comes under the doctrine of
judicial
estoppel and res
judicata.
If two diftbrent courts have tr,vo different rulings, the question becomes, ri'hich
cotrrt ruling prevails'?
-fhe
court rr-rling that determined the issues heard on the merits. or
the cor,rrt that denied dite process and entered a detault
jr-rdgment
on the issues. The
Gillespies were rell.in-u on the court rules that state the prevailing party is recluired to give
notice by serving the ordc-r of the court. I. Melody. specificalll'asked fbr a copl'of the
minttte order, and still hal'e not received a cop)'. The prevailing party did not present to
the Gillespies the order. We have a right to ha'n'e an order. timely'. to determine rvhat
tirrther action to take. Aaccordin-e to the court rules, rvhen the prevailing part,v- fails to
provide notice of the order and
-eive
the other side a chance to approve or dispute it. the
other side can have their order signed. The Gillespies sr-rbmitted such orders. and r et har e
not received an order tiorn the court by the prevailing party.
'fhe
Gillepsies exercised due dilli-qience by going to the court to check the court record tbr
the minute order or an)' kind of order from the larv and motions hearing of April 15. 201 I .
The judge
appeared to be in a hurry, did not hear the Motion to Strike on the lvlerits or the
Demurrer to the def'endant cross
-
complaint. and did not issue a clear order orallt'as to
r.vhat his ruling rvas. It appears that the rr-rling on the Demurrer is stili pending. The coLrrt
record \\'as gonc. and had been secreted by'the clerk ancl given to an Attornel' named
Robert Bh-re. I arn completcl-\' unarvare of vvho or r,vhat lrtr. Blue does, bLrt dicl trnd that his
of trce is in the'['r"rlare CoLrnty Courthouse in Visalia. The Giltespies r.r'ere told by'rhe court
clerk that the record 'uvould not be back fbr at least 30 da1's and therefbre tlie Gillespies
uould not havc- access to the record tbr 30 dal's.
10.'l'his lcti thc Gillespies w'aiting for thc ordcrof thc court.
-l'hc
Nlotion to Srrikc hacl nrerit.
as to the cc'rltntcr claim bcing used to sr.re thc Gillespics asain, places thc Gillcspics in a
cloublc.jcoparcil'. ll'thc dcl.enciants clid noI prsvail on thc nrerits..,,n'ould thcv bc ablc to sr.rc
a thirc'l timc tbr thc samc issucs.
'l'hc
Gillcspics havc rcliecl on this Supremc Court ll"uling:
"'ltes
jrrdicata'clcscribcs
the preclusive cft'ect ol'a llnal.judgmcnt cln the rncrits.
I{es.iudicata. or clairn preclusion. prel'cnts rclitigation of the samc ciluse of action
in a seconcl suit bctrvecn the samc parties or parties in privity rvith them. Collatcral
cstoppel, or issuc prcclusion,'prccllldcs
relitigation of issues argucd anci dcciclccl in
9
r6
I7
l8
t9
21
-rl 1
t)
il
t2.
2tt
l.l
{ .}
rr . r ttt)cc-cdin-es.'
[Citation.]
Undcr the doctrine of res
judicata
. . . a
judgrnent
:."::he det'endant serves as a bar to further litigation of the same cause of action."
.',[,,cogert Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 896-897.)
.:. The Gillespies required a
judicial
deterrnination as to rvhat issues in the counter
claim were ansrverable issues that have not been previously adjudicated.
'l'he
Gillespies also relied on CCP $ss586(aX3). 1019.5, for the time to answ.er. The
Motion to Strike being heard on the rnerits rvas crucial to fbr our ans\\'er to the
def'endant's cross cornplaint. If the Gillepies hird ansrvered the cross counter claim.
rvithout the rnotion to strike being heard on the merits. it r,vould caLrse the Gillespies
to u'aive the irnportant issues of the def-ects of the det-endants' counter cornplaint.
The Def-endants are reliti_qating the sarne issues already adjudicated.
Althou,eh the Gillespies inadvertantlv made a rnistake of lau. and tact that allou.ed
the other side to catch us by surprise and have a request fbr entrv of default lodged
into the case'nvitholrt ever giving us notice of their intent. The Gillespies did not
intend to neglect necessary action.
16. The defendants acts of having caused a detault entered on a quiet title action u'hen
it is provided by statue that in quiet title actions. "the court shall not enter
jud-ement
by def-ault but shall in all cases require evidence of Plaintiff's title and hear such
evidence as may be of-fered respecting clairns of an1' of the defendants" CCP
$764.010,
and submitting relita_qation on issues that have alreadl'been liti-eated are
extrinsic fraud.
'fhe
defendants answer and counter claim has manl' false
staternents and or-rtright lies, and falsil'ied docurnents iittzrched. created b1'Floftinan.
'fhis
is extrinsic tiaud and tiaud upon the court. The Gillespies are entitled to
sanctions against the def-endants, not being shut out of our ou'n action.
17.
'fhc
Gillespies have a strong meritorious case fbr injunction. w'ill suff.er irrcparablc
damage il'the entrl'of clefault and default.iucl-qrnent are not set zisiclc. ancl will causc
a rriyriad ol'lurthcr litigation. l"he Gillespies can rvin on the merits. and respecttulll
, request lor the colrrt to do rvhat is right in thc intcrcst ot-.iusticc ancl lirir pla1. ancl
lblloi.v ths lau ol-setting aside thc entry of dcfhult ancl vacalc thc clcfitult.f ud-ucrncnt.
VEI{IFICATION
Idcclare under the pcnalty of'periurl under thc larvs ol'thc Stats of Calitbrnia that thc fbregoing is
true and correct.
i-l
15.
2T
20
22
23
2-+
25
26
27
28
lirccutccl at Portcrr,'illc. Calilbrni;"r on this
:l:
u
- ) { dav o t' A [) 201I
Mclody' Gillcspic.
t5