Durant Harvesting, Inc. v. Angelina Dettamanti, et al.
Case No: 18CV06350
Hearing Date: Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:30

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Quash Service and to Vacate Per CCP 443

Durant Harvesting, Inc., v. Angelina Dettamanti, etc., et al. (Judge Sterne)

Case No. 18CV06350

Hearing Date: April 29, 2019

HEARING:

Motion of Defendant Angelina Dettamanti to Quash Service and to Vacate Orders

ATTORNEYS:

For Plaintiff Durant Harvesting, Inc.: Rafael Gonzalez, Jana Johnston, Mullen & Henzell, L.L.P

For Defendant Angelina Dettamanti: Marc E. Angelucci

For Defendant David Farmer, Trustee: James C. Buttery, Elizabeth A. Culley, Andre, Morris & Buttery

TENTATIVE RULING:

The court continues the hearing on defendant’s motion to June 3, 2019. Defendant Angelina Dettamanti shall file and serve a supplemental brief as set forth herein on or before May 6, 2019. Any other party may file and serve a response to this supplemental brief on or before May 13, 2019. Dettamanti may file and serve a further response on or before May 20, 2019.

Background:

This civil interpleader action is related to five probate matters, case numbers 16PR00195, 18PR00182, 18PR00334, 18PR00597, and 18WILL0339. All actions were filed and originally pending in North County.

On December 27, 2018, plaintiff Durant Harvesting, Inc., (Durant) filed its original complaint in interpleader seeking to determine defendants’ rights in and to rent in the amount of $110,000 that Durant is obligated to pay pursuant to an Agricultural Lease (Lease). (Complaint, ¶ 12.) As alleged in the complaint, the Lease is between Durant and Joe F. Carrari, trustee of the Joe and Phyllis Carrari Family Trust (Trust). (Ibid.) Joe Carrari died and there are competing claims regarding the proper successor trustee. (Complaint, ¶ 13.)

On December 28, 2018, the court ordered the clerk of the court to accept the deposit of the $110,000. (Order, filed Dec. 28, 2018.)

On January 22, 2018, David Farmer appeared in this action, identifying himself as the court-appointed temporary trustee of the Trust. (Notice of Appearance, filed Jan. 22, 2018.)

On January 25, 2019, Durant filed an amendment to the complaint identifying “Doe 1” as David Farmer, trustee of the Trust.

On January 29, 2019, Famer filed an ex parte application for the release of the $110,000 interpleaded funds.

On January 30, 2019, the court, the Hon. Timothy J. Staffel, Judge, presiding, entered an order (the January 30 Order) following the hearing on the ex parte application. The court signed an interlineated versions of the order presented by Farmer. On January 31, 2019, the court entered an amended order (Amended Order) which appears to have incorporated and typed the interlineations on the January 30 Order with an additional sentence. The first numbered paragraph of the Amended Order orders release of the $110,000 to Farmer for use to secure Trust property, remove unauthorized occupants, retain counsel and enter appearances in pending court matters involving the Trust. The second numbered paragraph of the Amended Order rescinds an order of the court dated December 3, 2018, which permitted defendant Angelina Dettamanti to remain residing at the Ranch Property. The Amended Ordered added a final sentence to the January 30 Order which states: “To the extent Angelina Dettamanti needs access to the Ranch Property to obtain her personal belongings, she must be accompanied by the Sheriff and the Temporary Trustee, David Y. Famer.” Both the January 30 Order and the Amended Order reflect that there was no appearance by Dettamanti at the January 30 hearing.

On February 7, 2019, Dettamanti filed an ex parte application to vacate or reconsider that part of the Amended Order that Dettamanti vacate her residence. The ex parte application argues that Dettamanti was not given notice of the ex parte application and Dettamanti was never properly served with the summons in this action.

On February 8, 2019, the court heard Dettamanti’s ex parte application. After a lengthy hearing, the court ordered that all current orders would remain in effect until the next hearing on February 15. (Minute Order, Feb. 8, 2019.)

On February 13, 2019, Dettamanti filed a “Status Update and Notice of 12/4/17 Amendment to Trust.” This status update indicated that Dettamanti had filed a petition for writ with the Court of Appeal.

On February 14, 2019, the order of the Court of Appeal summarily denying the petition for writ and request for stay was filed.

On February 15, 2019, the court held an evidentiary hearing on Dettamanti’s ex parte application to vacate a portion of the Amended Order. (Minute Order, Feb. 15, 2019.) The court determined that all previous orders, including the Amended Order, would remain in effect until further order of the court. (Notice of Ruling, filed Feb. 11, 2019.) The matter was continued to February 21.

At the February 21, 2019, hearing Judge Staffel recused himself.

On March 4, 2019, Dettamanti filed a notice of appeal identifying the orders appealed from as the orders dated January 30, 2019, and February 15, 2019.

On March 7, 2019, following disqualification of Judges Rigali and Beebe, the case was transferred to Santa Barbara.

On March 14, 2019, the order of the Court of Appeal summarily denying another petition for writ and request for stay was filed.

On March 22, 2019, Dettamanti filed this motion to quash service of summons pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10 and to set aside the January 30 Order and the Amended Orders on the grounds the orders are void for lack of service and required notice and that the orders are improper within this interpleader action.

The motion is opposed by Farmer on multiple grounds.

Analysis:

The court must first determine whether the court has jurisdiction to address the merits of the motion.

“Under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 916, ‘the trial court is divested of’ subject matter jurisdiction over any matter embraced in or affected by the appeal during the pendency of that appeal. [Citation.] ‘The effect of the appeal is to remove the subject matter of the order from the jurisdiction of the lower court….’ [Citation.] Thus, ‘that court is without power to proceed further as to any matter embraced therein until the appeal is determined.’ [Citations.] And any ‘proceedings taken after the notice of appeal was filed are a nullity.’ [Citations.] This is true even if the subsequent proceedings cure any purported defect in the judgment or order appealed from. [Citations.] [¶] … The purpose of the automatic stay under section 916 is to preserve ‘the status quo until the appeal is decided’ [citation], by maintaining ‘the rights of the parties in the same condition they were before the order was made’ [citation]. Otherwise, the trial court could render the ‘appeal futile by altering the appealed judgment or order by conducting other proceedings that may affect it.’ [Citation.]” (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 196-198, fn. omitted.)

It appears that the pending appeal is to the specific orders of the court that Dettamanti seeks to vacate by this motion. The court requires further briefing from the parties on whether the court has jurisdiction to address the motion pending disposition of the appeal. This briefing should address both aspects of the present motion, namely, (a) whether this court has jurisdiction to address the merits of the motion to vacate orders and (b) whether this court has jurisdiction to address the merits of the motion to quash service of summons where Dettamanti has asserted lack of effective service as a basis for vacating the orders and that issue appears to be an issue on appeal.

If the court has jurisdiction to address the motion to quash service of summons, the court requires further briefing from Dettamanti, and further response from Farmer, on the issue of whether her proceedings in this court prior to the filing of the motion to quash, including specifically the filing of declarations unrelated to the personal jurisdictional issue and the filing of a notice of appeal, constitute a general appearance in lieu of service of summons (see Code Civ. Proc., § 410.50, subd. (a)).

The court will continue the hearing on the motion to permit the filing of this requested briefing.