Loumena v. Kennedy et al

Filing 52

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting in part and denying in part 45 Motion to Relate Cases. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

JACK LOUMENA,
Plaintiff,

13
v.

14
15

PAMELA KENNEDY, et al.,

16

Case No. 15-CV-00951-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
RELATE CASES
Re: Dkt. No. 45

Defendants.

17
Before the Court is Plaintiff Jack Loumena’s (“Plaintiff”) unopposed administrative

18
19

motion to relate three cases to Loumena v. Kennedy, No. 15-CV-00915-LHK. ECF No. 45.1 An

20

action is related to another when “[t]he actions concern substantially the same parties, property,

21

transaction or event” and “[i]t appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication

22

of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different judges.”

23

Civil L.R. 3-12(a). After providing a brief account of the “parties, property, transaction or event”

24

in Loumena, the Court will consider the three cases that Plaintiff proposes to relate.
Loumena arose out of the state court divorce proceedings between Plaintiff’s mother,

25
26
27
28

1

Unless otherwise indicated, all ECF references are from the docket of No. 15-00951 in the
Northern District of California.
1
Case No. 15-CV-00951-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO RELATE CASES

Wylmina Hettinga (“Hettinga”), and father, Timothy Loumena (“Loumena”). ECF No. 47. In

2

Loumena, Plaintiff alleged that six defendants acted under the color of law to deprive Plaintiff of

3

his property at 21251 Almaden Road, San Jose, CA (the “Property”) in violation of Plaintiff’s

4

Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. ECF No. 1. According to Plaintiff, the six

5

defendants illegally transferred the Property to Loumena, who then sold the Property to third

6

parties. Id. Plaintiff challenged the sale of the Property and the distribution of the proceeds from

7

the sale. Id. The defendants included: (1) Walter Hammon (“Hammon”), an attorney appointed

8

by the Santa Clara County Superior Court to represent Plaintiff in the Hettinga-Loumena divorce

9

proceedings; (2) Pamela Kennedy (“Kennedy”), Clerk of the Santa Clara County Superior Court;

10

(3) Travis Krepelka (“Krepelka”), Loumena’s attorney; (4) Scott Raley, the state-court-appointed

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

real estate listing agent for the Property; (5) Chicago Title Co., which was involved in the sale of

12

the Property; and (6) Jeanie O’Connor, who has some relationship with Chicago Title Co. ECF

13

No. 47.

14

On October 13, 2015, this Court concluded that Plaintiff was challenging state court

15

orders, made during the Hettinga-Loumena divorce proceedings, which directed that the Property

16

be sold and the proceeds distributed to Loumena and Hettinga. Id. Accordingly, this Court

17

dismissed Plaintiff’s case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman

18

doctrine. Id. The Court also sanctioned Plaintiff for filing a frivolous and harassing complaint

19

and declared Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. Id.

20

Plaintiff proposes to relate three cases to Loumena. Plaintiff first asks the Court to relate

21

Hettinga v. Kennedy, et al., No. 13-CV-02217-RMW, in which Hettinga alleged that Loumena and

22

Kennedy violated Hettinga’s Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights in transferring the

23

Property to Loumena, who then sold it to third parties. No. 13-02217, ECF No. 1. Hettinga has

24

already been dismissed with prejudice, No. 13-02217, ECF No. 107, and is on appeal with the

25

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 13-02217, ECF No. 109. Accordingly, the Court

26

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to relate Hettinga to Loumena.

27
28

Plaintiff next asks the Court to relate Loumena v. Hammon et al. (“Hammon”), No. 152
Case No. 15-CV-00951-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO RELATE CASES

1

CV-03613-NC. In Hammon, Plaintiff sued Hammon and Krepelka for distributing the proceeds of

2

the sale of the Property in violation of state court orders and Plaintiff’s rights. No. 15-03613, ECF

3

No. 1. Hammon and Loumena concern substantially the same parties and events, and it appears

4

likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting

5

results if the cases are conducted before different judges. See Civil L.R. 3-12(a). The Court

6

GRANTS the motion to relate Hammon to Loumena.

7

Finally, Plaintiff asks the Court to relate Hettinga v. Paliwal, No. 15-CV-02246-BLF.

8

Hettinga sued Shashank Paliwal, an Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) agent, for violating the

9

Tenth Amendment. No. 15-02246, ECF No. 1. Hettinga alleges that the IRS improperly
attributed income and interest in the Property to Hettinga, when the Property truly belonged to an

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

independent company. Id. Although Paliwal and Loumena involve the same property, the cases

12

are not related within the meaning of Civil Local Rule 3-12(a). None of the parties are the same.

13

Moreover, none of the factual or legal issues presented in Paliwal were the subject of Loumena.

14

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to relate Paliwal is DENIED. See Civil L.R. 3-12(a).

15

In summary, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to relate Hettinga v. Kennedy, et al.,

16

No. 13-CV-02217-RMW, and Hettinga v. Paliwal, No. 15-CV-02246-BLF. The Court GRANTS

17

Plaintiff’s motion to relate Loumena v. Hammon et al., No. 15-CV-03613-NC. Hammon shall be

18

reassigned to the undersigned judge. All future filings are to bear the initials “LHK.” Unless

19

otherwise ordered, any dates for hearing noticed motions are vacated and must be renoticed by the

20

moving party before the newly assigned judge; any deadlines set by the ADR Local Rules remain

21

in effect; and any deadlines established in a case management order continue to govern, except

22

dates for appearance in court, which will be rescheduled by the newly assigned judge. A copy of

23

this Order shall be filed in the Hammon docket.

24
25
26
27
28

3
Case No. 15-CV-00951-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO RELATE CASES

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3
4
5

Dated: October 23, 2015
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
Case No. 15-CV-00951-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO RELATE CASES