Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02217/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02217-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

Case No. 15-CV-00951-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO RELATE CASES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JACK LOUMENA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAMELA KENNEDY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-CV-00951-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

RELATE CASES

Re: Dkt. No. 45

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

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

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

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

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

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

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, 

 

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all ECF references are from the docket of No. 15-00951 in the 

Northern District of California.

**This order was originally filed in 15-

CV-00951-LHK, ECF No. 52, on 

10/23/2015.** 

Case 5:13-cv-02217-RMW Document 119 Filed 10/23/15 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No. 15-CV-00951-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO RELATE CASES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. 47. 

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

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

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

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

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

and declared Plaintiff a vexatious litigant. Id.

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

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

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

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

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

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

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to relate Hettinga to Loumena.

Plaintiff next asks the Court to relate Loumena v. Hammon et al. (“Hammon”), No. 15-

Case 5:13-cv-02217-RMW Document 119 Filed 10/23/15 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No. 15-CV-00951-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO RELATE CASES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

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

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

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

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

GRANTS the motion to relate Hammon to Loumena.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this Order shall be filed in the Hammon docket.

Case 5:13-cv-02217-RMW Document 119 Filed 10/23/15 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No. 15-CV-00951-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO RELATE CASES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-02217-RMW Document 119 Filed 10/23/15 Page 4 of 4