Are the Judges AND the Defendant’s Bullies?? You have to wonder when you read about the following case.
Typically, when a homeowner goes to court to sue their Pretender Lender for a Quiet Title Action, both sides present their case. One side wins, one side looses. The court does not order the homeowner to change their complaint to fit what the defendant wants but to what changes need to be made to the original complaint. If the amended complaint meets the Judge’s approval then the case proceeds. Or, if not then the defendant’s may win their request to have the homeowner’s case dismissed. In that case, the homeowner often receives a final order dismissing the case and permitting the homeowner to appeal.
The following case being heard in the Ninth Circuit Court of the Central Division in Los Angeles is so bizarre what Judge Dolly Gee and Magistrate Jay Ghandi have done until it defies understanding. You Decide.
The homeowner filed a Quiet Title lawsuit against US BANK NA and MERS. The Bank’s attorney filed a Motion to Dismiss the homeowner’s case. The homeowner defended and argued back that none of the arguments made by the defendant were legal nor fact based. The defendant’s never argued to defend against what the homeowner filed against the bank’s arguments. In most court rooms across this country that would mean that the defendant’s would loose their request to dismiss the case. But instead the court did the following very bizarre actions:
The court ordered the homeowner to change the lawsuit from one which amounted to being a foreclosure lawsuit instead of a Quiet Title lawsuit. The problem the court and the defendant’s were having is that the plaintiff did not have to produce tender or a bond because of the legal theory presented and the fact the home had not been sold. What then happened was what appears to be the court’s intentional stalling in order to put the homeowner in to a position where she would not be able to fight the case as a Quiet title without producing tender or a thousands of dollars. The judge then, told the homeowner if she did not amend the complaint it would be dismissed as a prosecutorial dismissal, which basically means you were defiant and bad for not doing what I told you to do.
The homeowner asked the judge to please dismiss the case so she could proceed to the ninth circuit, but to not add the word “prosecutorial” as it sounded very negative, and afterall the homeowner only wanted to keep the Quiet Title lawsuit and not to have to change it to what the defendant’s wanted which is a Foreclosure lawsuit.
The homeowner has been waiting since February for the Court to Dismiss the case so that she can proceed to appeal her case. The long waiting period has given the defendant’s just the advantage they hoped for to proceed to auction on the homeowner’s property, thus rendering her incapable of pursuing her lawsuit. Talk about Stacking the Deck! Wow! California Judges here play Hardball with homeowners who DARE to Stand Up to Banks! On March 15, the homeowner had a Trustee Sale Notice posted on her home. She requested the Judge for a Preliminary Injunction, temporarily stopping the auction sale. But after waiting three weeks for a response, with the sale date within three days the Judge issued a “NO!” to the preliminary injunction WITH prejudice, meaning and you cannot come back and ask for it again. The judge made it very clear in the response that the reason was because the homeowner did not have a “operative complaint?” Why? Could it be because the Judge DID NOT issue a Dismissal allowing the Homeowner to file an appeal in the ninth circuit??
Why is the Judge or her Magistrate Holding THIS homeowner HOSTAGE? Could her COMPLAINT BE THAT GOOD?? SOMEBODY needs to read this complaint: Veincentotzs v BNC and MERS WHAT in the HECK is going on in CALIF COURTS with Judge Dolly Gee and JAY GHANDI??