Lisana Meade v. Jules Helm et al, No. 2:2020cv08839 - Document 55 (C.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT 54 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. 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. (lom)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lisana Meade v. Jules Helm et al Doc. 55 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court Central District of California 8 9 10 11 LISANA MEADE, Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 JULES HELM, 15 Case No. 2:20-cv-08839-ODW (JEMx) FINAL JUDGMENT Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Lisana Meade brought this action against Defendant Jules Helm, 18 seeking a partition and accounting of the real property located at 4139 Cahuenga 19 Boulevard, #107, Toluca Lake, California 91602 (the “Property”). On May 2, 2022, 20 the Court denied the parties cross motions for summary judgment, finding that 21 summary judgment was precluded by a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether 22 Plaintiff signed a quitclaim deed (the “Deed”) (attached hereto as “Trial 23 Exhibit 1001”), surrendering her interest in the Property, or whether the signature on 24 the Deed was a forgery and Plaintiff did in fact maintain an interest in the Property. 25 (See generally Order Den. Mots. Summ. J., ECF No. 38.) On June 16, 2022, the 26 Court issued an Order stating that this factual question regarding the authenticity of 27 the signature on the Deed, is the only remaining issue to be tried. (Final Pretrial 28 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 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 August 3, 2022 19 20 21 ____________________________________ OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 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.
