Lisana Meade v. Jules Helm et al, No. 2:2020cv08839 - Document 50 (C.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: On June 24, 2022, the Court held an in-person, one-day bench trial 46 . After Plaintiff rested her case, Defendant made a motion for judgment on partial findings, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedu re 52(c). The Court granted the motion, based on the Plaintiffs testimony at trial and the credibility thereof, the exhibits admitted into evidence, and the Final Pretrial Conference Order, including the admitted facts and the legal authorities cited therein. The Court therefore ORDERS, ADJUDGES, and DECREES the following: 1. Plaintiff signed the Deed and quitclaimed her interest in the Property and therefore, since then, has maintained no interest in the Property; 2. Plaintiff's signature on the Deed is not a forgery; 3. Plaintiff is not entitled to an accounting or partition of the Property; and 4. Judgment is entered for Defendant. The Court VACATES all dates and deadlines. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lc) Modified on 7/8/2022 (lc).

Download PDF
Lisana Meade v. Jules Helm et al Doc. 50 O JS-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court Central District of California 8 9 10 11 LISANA MEADE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 JULES HELM, 15 Case No. 2:20-cv-08839-ODW (JEMx) FINAL JUDGMENT Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Lisana Meade brought this action against Defendant Jules Helm, 19 seeking a partition and accounting of the real property located at 4139 Cahuenga 20 Boulevard, #107, Toluca Lake, California 91602 (the “Property”). On May 2, 2022, 21 the Court denied the parties cross motions for summary judgment, finding that 22 summary judgment was precluded by a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether 23 Plaintiff signed a quitclaim deed (the “Deed”), surrendering her interest in the 24 Property, or whether the signature on the Deed was a forgery and Plaintiff did in fact 25 maintain an interest in the Property. (See generally Order Den. Mots. Summ. J., ECF 26 No. 38.) On June 16, 2022, the Court issued an Order stating that this factual question 27 regarding the authenticity of the signature on the Deed, is the only remaining issue to 28 be tried. (Final Pretrial Conference Order 6, ECF No. 44.) Dockets.Justia.com 1 On June 24, 2022, the Court held an in-person, one-day bench trial. (See Bench 2 Trial Mins., ECF No. 45.) Plaintiff appeared with her attorney, Scott A. Meehan and 3 Defendant appeared with his attorneys, Paul S. Marks and Yuriko M. Shikai. After 4 Plaintiff rested her case, Defendant made a motion for judgment on partial findings, 5 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c). The Court granted the motion, 6 based on the Plaintiff’s testimony at trial and the credibility thereof, the exhibits 7 admitted into evidence, and the Final Pretrial Conference Order, including the 8 admitted facts and the legal authorities cited therein. 9 10 11 The Court therefore ORDERS, ADJUDGES, and DECREES the following: 1. Plaintiff signed the Deed and quitclaimed her interest in the Property and therefore, since then, has maintained no interest in the Property; 12 2. Plaintiff’s signature on the Deed is not a forgery; 13 3. Plaintiff is not entitled to an accounting or partition of the Property; and 14 4. Judgment is entered for Defendant. 15 16 17 The Court VACATES all dates and deadlines. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 July 8, 2022 20 21 22 ____________________________________ OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.