JPMorgan Chase Bank NA vs Logan Schubert

Case Number

24CV00885

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 09/09/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motion to Acknowledge Title 48 CFR International Commercial Affidavit Presented as Letter of Rogatory

Tentative Ruling

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Logan Schubert   

Limited Civil Case No. 24CV00885

Hearing Date: September 9, 2024                                                      

HEARING:              Defendant’s Motion To Acknowledge Title 48 CFR International Commercial Affidavit Presented As Letter Of Rogatory

                                                           

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.: Donald Sherrill, Alexander Balzer Carr, Hunt & Henriques, LLP

                                    For Defendant Logan Schubert: Self Represented

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of defendant Logan Schubert to “Acknowledge Title 48 CFR International Commercial Affidavit Presented As Letter Of Rogatory” is denied without prejudice.

Background: 

On February 20, 2024, plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (plaintiff), filed this limited civil action against defendant Logan Schubert (defendant) alleging causes of action for common counts based on an open book account and an account stated. (See Compl., ¶ CC-1(a)(1) & (2).) As alleged in the complaint, within the last four years, defendant became indebted to plaintiff on an open book account for money due and because an account was stated in writing between plaintiff and defendant in which it was agreed that defendant was indebted to plaintiff. (Ibid.) The reasonable value due from and unpaid by defendant despite plaintiff’s demand is $13,975.52. (Id. at ¶ CC-2.)

On March 27, 2024, ostensibly in response to plaintiff’s complaint, defendant filed five documents: (1) a “Motion To Dismiss” (the motion to dismiss); (2) an “Answer … and Memorandum Of Law In Support” (the answer); (3) a “List Of Exhibits In Support Of Answer, Motion To Dismiss, and Memorandum Of Law In Support” (the exhibits); (4) an “Affidavit In Support Of Answer, Motion To Dismiss, And Memorandum Of Law In Support” (the affidavit); and (5) an “Affidavit Of Notice [of Discharge]” (the notice). In the answer and motion to dismiss, defendant requested an order under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dismissing plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that “payment was already tendered, in accord with Title 48 C.F.R. Ch. 1, §53.228, UCC 3-307 and CISG.” (See Motion To Dismiss at p. 1, ll. 18-25; Answer at p. 5, ll. 16-25.)

On April 22, 2024, plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss.

On May 10, 2024, defendant filed a document entitled “Response By Negative Averment Affidavit To Request For Discovery By Plaintiff”, in which defendant states that he “[a]nswers plaintiff’s complaint….” (Response at p. 1.)

On May 20, 2024, the Court issued its Minute Order denying the motion to dismiss and ordering defendant to, on or before June 4, 2024, file and serve an answer to plaintiff’s complaint. In addition, the Court set a trial confirmation conference in this matter on July 29, 2024. (May 20, 2024, Minute Order.)

On July 5, 2024, defendant filed a document entitled “Motion To Acknowledge Title 48 CFR International Commercial Affidavit Presented As Letter Of Rogatory” (the July 2024 motion). Also on July 5, 2024, defendant filed a “Notice To Appoint Trustee With Form 56” (the July 2024 notice), ostensibly in support of the July 2024 motion. In the July 2024 notice, defendant purports to appoint Alexander Balzar Carr, who Court records reflect is counsel for plaintiff, as a fiduciary regarding a “Logan Schubert Trust”. (July 2024 Notice at p. 1.)

On July 29, 2024, the Court issued a Minute Order vacating the trial confirmation conference set on August 12, 2024, noting that there were no appearances by any party on that day, and continuing the matter to September 9, 2024.

On August 2, 2024, defendant filed a document entitled “Additional Evidence And Timeline Of Events Exhibit C & D” (the Timeline), in which defendant offers a summary outline of “key events, legal references, and implication” in this case. (Timeline, p. 1.)

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the July 2024 motion.

Analysis:

A motion is an application for an order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1003.) Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (a)(1) through (13), sets forth motions which require written notice, which include “[a]ny … proceeding under this code in which notice is required, and no other time or method is prescribed by law or by court or judge.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (13).)

In the present July 2024 motion, defendant requests that the Court order that “Donald Sherrill, Esq. and/or successor(s) must prove and provide on the record that he/she had neither any jurisdiction nor any Law that can supersede the Holder-In-Due-Course Priority Claim”, a hearing “to appoint, and/or Donald Sherrill, Esq. successor(s) as Trustee of Logan Schubert and released/discharged from any and all alleged obligation(s) to State of California; et a1.”, that a “judgment of conviction Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Barbara Cause/Case/Res Number 24CV00885 (and any/all derivatives) be reversed or vacated for want of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Dismiss with Prejudice”, that the “indictment or other accusatory instrument” be dismissed with prejudice and any court proceedings cancelled, that agents or assignees for the State of California “return of all the Secured Party’s secured private property as secured under Colorado, Secretary of State, which was referenced in Cause/Case/Res Number 24CV00886 and any/all derivatives or justly compensate for the value taken unjustly”, and that defendant be “set at liberty immediately”. (Motion at pp. 15-16.)

It is unclear to the Court the nature of the orders sought by defendant or the legal or factual basis on which defendant basis his requests. For example, defendant fails to explain on what grounds he may request an order appointing counsel for plaintiffs as successor trustee of defendant’s trust. Notwithstanding these deficiencies, to the extent that defendant asserts that the orders sought in the motion are justified based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction with respect to this action, and notwithstanding whether the motion is procedurally or substantively appropriate, it appears to the Court that written notice is required for the July 2024 motion. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (a)(4) & (13).)

“A notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(a); see also Code Civ. Proc., § 1010 [a notice of a motion must state “the grounds upon which it will be made”].) “The purpose of the notice requirements ‘is to cause the moving party to “sufficiently define the issues for the information and attention of the adverse party and the court.” ’ [Citations.]” (Kinda v. Carpenter (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1277.) Therefore, “[a]s a general rule, the trial court may consider only the grounds stated in the notice of motion.” (Luri v. Greenwald (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1125 (Luri).)

Absent from the July 2024 motion is any clear and concise notice sufficiently defining the issues presented for the Court and plaintiffs. In addition, to the extent the grounds offered in the supporting memorandum are not stated in a sufficient written notice, the Court is generally not required to consider these grounds.

The memorandum submitted in support of the motion is also deficient. For example, in the memorandum, defendant does not state clear the grounds for the relief Schubert intends to seek in the motion (See, e.g., Luri, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 1125 [“[a]n omission in the notice may be overlooked if the supporting papers make clear the grounds for the relief sought”].) Defendant also fails to provide any evidence to support the contentions and requests for relief, and fails to request judicial notice of any fact or matter on which defendant relies. In the absence of any evidence or judicially noticed facts, there exists no factual basis upon which to grant the relief sought by the motion.

By way of further example, defendant relies heavily on, and requests the Court to acknowledge the validity of, the provisions of Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations which “sets forth basic policies and general information about the Federal Acquisition Regulations System ….” (48 C.F.R. § 1.000.) Defendant fails to explain, with reasoned factual or legal argument, why substantive federal regulatory law applies to or warrants the relief sought in the motion, including with respect to the provisions of section 53.228 of the Code of Federal Regulations which prescribes standard forms for bid bonds, performance bonds, payment bonds, and other bond and insurance requirements. (48 C.F.R. § 53.228.) Defendant also fails to explain with clear reasoned factual or legal argument why the state law claims asserted in this manner are preempted by the various federal regulations cited in the July 2024 motion. (Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1475-1476 [general discussion of federal preemption].)

As the July 2024 motion lacks any coherent or cogent request for relief or reasoned and understandable factual and legal argument explaining the basis for any relief sought by defendant including the nature of that relief, the Court is unable to determine the issues including whether the motion has merit. In addition to the extent defendant contends that he has paid or otherwise caused to be discharged the purported debt alleged in the complaint, defendant may raise any appropriate defenses in a procedurally and substantively appropriate motion or at trial. Therefore, and for all reasons discussed above, the Court will deny the July 2024 motion without prejudice to any future procedurally and substantively motion that may be filed by defendant based on any purported discharge of the debt giving rise to the present action.