Givan v. Givens CA1/1

Filed 8/30/23 Givan v. Givens CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

CLIFFORD GIVAN et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, A166382

v. (Alameda County DERMOT GIVENS, Super. Ct. No. 21CV001443) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Dermot Givens filed a notice of appeal from an order denying his motion to quash service of summons. After reviewing the briefs and the record submitted to this court, we have concluded there is no appealable order on which to base the appeal and an insufficient record on which to predicate review by petition for writ of mandate. Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint against defendant, in his individual capacity and as trustee of “The ‘Ruth’ Given/Ida Jackson Revocable Living Trust,” alleging two causes of action for quiet title and intentional misrepresentation. Plaintiffs claim Ida Jackson owned two parcels of real property, and upon Jackson’s death, each should have received one parcel. However, plaintiffs allege defendant filed a petition pursuant to

Probate Code section 172001 in Los Angeles County Superior Court, presenting the court with “an updated ‘Trust’ with a fraudulent notary page.” The petition was granted, but six months later, a motion to set aside void order was granted. Plaintiffs further allege defendant took out loans on the two parcels, in excess of $420,000. As a direct and proximate result of defendant’s unlawful acts, the complaint asserts, plaintiffs have been deprived of their ownership rights to their respective properties, their properties are no longer free of lien, and they have incurred costs and fees to bring this action. From what we have been able to piece together from the record, a proof of service of summons on defendant, as an individual, was filed on February 18, 2022. Thereafter, pursuant to an order filed on March 23, 2022, the trial court denied a motion for change of venue “filed by Dermot Givens on 01/05/2022.” Defendant, on June 1, 2022, filed a motion to quash service of complaint. The court denied the motion, concluding defendant made a general appearance when he “filed a motion to transfer venue on January 5, 2022.” “Having previously submitted to the Court’s jurisdiction,” the court concluded defendant “waived his right to claim jurisdictional defenses.” II. ANALYSIS Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash service of summons because in its order, the trial court found Dermot Givens, an individual defendant, had made a general appearance and submitted to the jurisdiction of the court by filing the motion to transfer venue.