Judge Shirley Watkins

Shirley K. Watkins was appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court by Governor Jerry Brown in November 2014. Prior to her appointment, Watkins practiced primarily in the area of medical malpractice and successfully handled hundreds of malpractice cases. She was a member of the CAALA Board of Governors and served in several Board positions for Women Lawyers of Los Angeles, Trial Lawyers for Public Justice and the Los Angeles County Bar Association. 

She was also the subject of a recall in 2021. 

With such a background one would wonder how she does not understand res judicata, issue preclusion and claim preclusion, as well as the estoppel doctrine...and how is she getting filings that aren't even showing up on the docket from opposing counsel? 

While her online reviews tell the story and various sites make alarming allegations about her...this is the truth and nothing but the truth.  

This is a LONG time coming ...

July 11, 2025:

Hearing went as expected.  Despite it's tentative referencing it's intent to enter judgment on the settlement, plaintiff was told if she addressed the intended Order she would be "muted."  Pretty sure that's a canon violation.  Trial is moved until November 10, 2025.  And court denies their request to seal the settlement likely because she already OUTED every detail in her Order.  Next hearing is set for July 22, 2025. Additional briefing being filed on the 13th with exhibits to support a reconsideration and that she has altered various terms and that the written settlement relied on $170,000 being the "second check" and that check was for $109,500.00.  Uncertain why she won't acknowledge res judicata.  So now there are inconsistent rulings by 2 judges on the SAME settlement..will be an interesting appeal. Fun times. 

Finally saw her Verified Answer and Striking on the non-existent Verified Statement to Disqualify.   She ignores the changes she made to the settlement [664.6] and the new agreement on April 11, 2025.  She claims there will not be a lock out order, but that the defense can file an eviction.  Imagine that...despite Judge Cochran stating:

MAY 9, 2025: JUDGE COCHRAN:  THAT'S WHY IN THE RELIEF THAT WAS ORDERED IT COULD NOT INCLUDE THE ALLOCATION FOR THE OTHER CASE, AND IT COULD NOT INCLUDE REQUIRING MOVING OFF THE PREMISES. WE DISCUSSED ALL THOSE THINGS, AND THAT TRANSCRIPT MAKES EMINENTLY CLEAR WHAT MY RULING COVERS AND WHAT IT DOESN'T, WHAT CASE IT PERTAINS TO AND WHAT CASE IT DOES NOT ENCOMPASS.

She is going to start a 90-day clock to move from April 22, 2025 based on the check for from the other case...pure lunacy.  She has to know what she is doing is wrong so the question is...who is behind this?   Now more expensive appeals have to be filed because of the most insane order yet in this case. She is literally going along with the nut Ashan Peiris and alleging the check in the other case started some clock.  She refuses to look at any orders in the first case while relying on that very check.  Her Answer to the non-existent Verified Statement to Disqualify says she "did not have ex-parte communications" and that the perjured document drafted by Ashan Peiris was sent to her by "courtesy copy," but she told Hart not to send courtesy copies because that's "not what I look at." 

The record, prior orders, and various doctrines are what they are and this will be resolved on appeal.  We can't expect her to admit she is wrong...not all judges have that capacity. At this point...it's simply a pissing contest. 

Motion to stay will be filed once the Notice of Appeal is filed right after the Order comes in.

July 9, 2025

As predicted, Judge Watkins ignored the Opposition to the motion for deposition dates and sanctions and GRANTED.   She does not address sanctions but this is her tentative: 

1.  Defendants’ O’Brien and Sapp’s motion to continue trial

Grant. The court scheduled the trial date without taking into consideration scheduling issues.  The court will continue the trial to Nov. _____, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. and the FSC to Nov. ____, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.

There was a hearing on this already but to align with opposing counsel she now changes the trial date again.

2.  Motion to compel deposition of plaintiff

Grant. The defendants have been attempting for many months to obtain this deposition.  The court finds good cause to order the deposition.  The court orders the deposition of plaintiff to be taken by Zoom on ___________, 2025 at 9 a.m. 

Once again not reading the papers [and her own directives] that had a notice of deposition set for July 15, 2025 and as pled: 

THE COURT: THEN YOU NEED TO TAKE THAT MOTION OFF

CALENDAR BECAUSE SHE JUST GAVE YOU FOUR DATES.

Plaintiff’s Objection offered to be produced in mid-July after the terminating motions is heard.

Ms. Tran then noticed the deposition for July 15, 2025, making the motion moot yet again. Ms.

McKinnon again claims she does not have to comply with this court’s directive. 

If only she had stood by her own directive and READ the opposition. 

3.  Motion to seal/motion to enforce settlement agreement filed 5/29/2025

The court has already ruled on the motion to enforce which was filed on 5/30/2025.  Once the court enforces the settlement agreement, including entry of judgment, it can [sic] longer be confidential.  The court finds that the interests of justice are not met by sealing the agreement.

The court also finds that CRC 2.550(d) has not been met which requires the court to find:

The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish:

(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;

(2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record;

(3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;

(4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and

(5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.

This is funny...because she just told Ashan Peiris OTR on July 3, 2025, that she was going to seal. But after senior judges, who are helping her, received an email that she already BLASTED the terms in her Minute Order and sent them to Jade Tran in violation of the settlement, she had to cover and now state that the terms aren't sealed.  Oh and she has more than enough information showing that the now defunct settlement is public.  Had she only read the opposition and the RJN with proof of that. 

July 8, 2025:  

Let's see if she orders the locks of Hart to be changed on July 23, 2025, with no sheriff, despite LaSalle suing for specific performance and then moving to dismiss as moot on May 6, 2025.

Predict she GRANTS Deanna O'Brien's [Ashton McKinnon] frivolous motion for deposition dates and sanctions after she told Ashton McKinnon on May 2, 2025, to "withdraw the motion." Deposition is set for July 15, 2025, but that did not stop the witch, Ashton, who can't make a move without Jade, from still pursuing sanctions.  Insurance defense lawyers are so miserable.  The more you succeed against them the more they lose their mind. Jade Tran signed a 998 on Legacy Partners, Inc., knowing there was a possibility that Legacy Partners Residential, Inc., would be named because they are acting as a separate entity and acting as 'landlord."  So she has lost her mind and filed a demurrer pretending like they aren't acting as landlord despite being on 600 leases.  Will Judge Watkins read the opposition?  Likely not. 

July 4, 2025 

[Updates and predictions of future vindictive rulings will be posted until she is off the case.]

How many judges can Ashan Peiris take down? And why would Ashan Peiris tell Judge Cochran the below if he truly believed there was a settlement  in the second case?

MR. PEIRIS: BUT I THINK I COULD USE THE RULINGS IN THIS CASE AND

THE FINDINGS TO MAKE THE MOTION IN THE OTHER CASE, AND THAT WOULD – 

Judge Watkins did not seem to grasp this OBVIOUS scheme.

As most know, Hart v Sullivan was filed in 2019.  Due to corrupt act after corrupt act by many including counsel listed on this site, and surviving 19 months of Judge Falls who still works from home, this case went on and on and landed with Judge Steven Cochran ("Cochran") in 2024.  After another year of lunacy and on the eve of trial set for November 12, 2024, where Cochran was only giving the parties "6 hours" to put on their case, Hart settled with the remaining parties [Jonathan Kyle Dupree, LaSalle Investment Management, Inc., and LaSalle Property Fund Reit, Inc.] for $192,500 for that case, and $90,000 for Hart v LaSalle, which was filed against the SAME defendants in March 2023.  One would think insurance defense would mitigate their damages but AON, SOMPO and Axis are an interesting group and appear to be as insane as their lawyers and clients.  

The defendants thought it would be a good idea to KEEP engaging in utility disruption and give out plaintiff's key to a random man to walk into her unit in January 2023.  The payments were supposed to be made in 2 payments:  The first was to be $112,000, and the second would be $170,000.  Mr. Peiris only gave Hart, $82,000.  A KEY factor/term was Legacy Partners and their "counsel" would not know the terms for safety reasons.  This included the maintenance manager who had been harassing plaintiff for YEARS and who while living on the property hosts an alarming YouTube Channel, and a gang member who made it clear that he wanted to have sex with Hart and others. Both hover around plaintiff making vacating dangerous and one of the key reasons why Hart has not vacated to date.   

The entire insane July 3, 2025 order not only alters the entire lawsuit but she is now changing the defunct settlement clauses and the new agreement.  The prior clause states there is 7 days after the final payment [a second payment] to enter dismissal, But the new terms were a 2nd payment for no terms.  She now ignores all of this and plans to enter dismissal on July 22, 2025 whether the payment had even been given to plaintiff. She even changes the initial 2024 terms that she "wont enforce" payment for keys.  Why would anyone then move and hope to get paid?  She also ignores that the NEW payment amounts alter the settlement and make it void. 

Case No. 1:  While the $112,000 was to be paid within 48 hours of signing it would not be paid for 5-6 months.  This is a material breach of section (u) of the settlement. Judge Watkins failed to read this. Counsel and defendants also told Legacy staff the terms, another material breach.  Mr. Peiris even suggested that a the stoner employee be there for the key exchange. Judge Watkins July 3, 2025 Order publishes a move out date  and sends it to "Legacy counsel," a breach of the defunct settlement she thinks is live. 

While Mr. Peiris was writing of ALL the excuses for the check being delayed, Hart finds out that LaSalle Investment Management, who unlawfully did business in CA for over 20 years, has gone into forfeiture with the FTB. This is also confirmed on the SOS website.  All documents are available on this site.   Due to not having the payment and staff acting in ways proving they know the terms, plaintiff files for rescission under the mandatory RTC, for fraud and for an injunction that she does not have to comply with the terms.  The end result [dismissal as moot] supports the doctrine of estoppel barring Judge Watkins from what she did on July 3, 2025. 

Her tentative and the SICK Order that has now altered the entire case, are available on this site.

Only AFTER Hart v Dupree is filed, does Mr. Peiris allegedly send a payment to plaintiff's P.O. Box even though he was instructed to place the payment "under plaintiff's front door."  To this day NO ONE knows what was in the envelop.  The reason for sending it to the P.O. Box was they knew that Hart would not sign for something without knowing what was in it.  He didn't want her to have payment - he wanted the appearance of payment. He would later do this again.  Ashan Peiris should be disbarred.   So at this point Plaintiff has not only not been paid according to the terms but she has now sued for rescission.  

Mr. Peiris would then go on for months claiming that the FTB made an "error" without ANY support.  

On January 3, 2025, Judge Watkins states that Hart can file a Notice of Withdrawal of Conditional Settlement and does not have to do this by motion.  Plaintiff files the Notice that day.

On January 7, 2025, Judge Watkins states the following by Order:

Noice of Settlement is Withdrawn. Plaintiff has filed a notice of withdrawal of conditional settlement (1/3/25). On the Court's own motion, the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) as to defendants Jonathan Kyle Dupree, LaSalle Investment Management,Inc. (fka Maryland LaSalle Investment Management, Inc.), LPF Triana, Inc., and LaSalle Property Fund REIT, Inc. scheduled for 03/07/2025 is vacated.

Plaintiff is "silly" enough to rely on this Order. Ashan Peiris then goes MIA and fails to appear in the case until June, as detailed below.  All parties rely on the above order and believe there is NO settlement in this case. Watkins goes on to blame plaintiff for this in June 2025.  Why did Ashan Peiris ask Judge Cochran to dismiss this case, if he too did not believe there was no settlement in this case?

On January 20, 2025, The LaSalle defendants hire Gordon Rees for the rescission case but the problem is, they represent Legacy Partners for various mass torts on illegal background checks at LASC and are now in possession of the settlement, ANOTHER material breach of the settlement.  They are then dumb enough to sue plaintiff for breach for filing the new complaint, and for filing the Notice.  Both protected under the litigation privilege.  How Judge Harmon handled that is detailed under HIS bio.  They also sue plaintiff to NOT have to pay.  This is crucial to what Judge Watkins  later did on July 3, 2025, and the estoppel doctrine. If ONLY Judge Watkins read plaintiff's filings. She was too busy though maligning plaintiff in her outrageous deceptive tentatives that morphed into the odd July 3, 2025 Order, after Ashan Peiris filed a "supplemental" now admitting that the plaintiff did cash the checks and now asking for her to enter dismissal - not the court, and that they simply want a new "prayer" that there be a now 3rd payment and that the 2nd payment "triggered" a non-existent move.  Oddly, his filing is STILL not on the docket at the time she amends her tentative to give him what he wants despite the law and new agreement. 

Plaintiff propounds discovery on LaSalle in January 2025 in the 3rd case, and asks why she was not paid within 48 hours per the settlement, and why she was never sent a copy of the second check per the agreement.  Their responses:

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

Please state why YOU to this date have not sent plaintiff copies of the first checks making up the complete first payment.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Objection: This request is ambiguous and unintelligible as the Propounding Party has defined the term “YOU” to refer to the Responding Party and any agent of the Responding Party. Objection: This interrogatory is argumentative as it is harassing, accusatory and assumes facts in controversy. Therefore, it is also compound, and it would be oppressive for the Responding party to answer as written. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, 2030.060.) Objection: This request is uncertain, vague, ambiguous,  unintelligible, and overly broad, as Plaintiff has not identified or defined the terms in

the above interrogatory leaving said interrogatory ambiguous. (Evidence Code § 765.) Without waiving said objection, and subject to the same, Responding Party responds as follows: In or around time of performance of the Settlement Agreement, Propounding Party made reference to filing another collateral action to which filing would excuse the

Responding Party’s performance regarding the Settlement Agreement. Due to Propounding Party filing the current action [Dec 2nd] , and Responding Party’s Answer thereto, the Responding Party’s performance remains excused.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please state why YOU did not place the

checks under plaintiffs front door as directed by Judge Cochran.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Objection: This request is

argumentative, burdensome and/or oppressive. (Evidence Code § 765.) Objection: This request is ambiguous and unintelligible as the Propounding Party has defined the term “YOU” to refer to the Responding Party and any agent of the Responding Party. Objection: This interrogatory is argumentative as it is harassing, accusatory and assumes facts in controversy. Therefore, it is also compound, and it would be oppressive for the Responding party to answer as written. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, 2030.060.).

This is important because Ashan Peiris claims under penalty of perjury that he sent a payment on December 4, 2024 AFTER the lawsuit was filed.  It is believed that everything he did was to get the new suit filed so they did not have to pay. This is supported when he later moves for an offset of $100,000 as to the liquidated damages clause when the balance was $109,500 as to the 1st case.

Ashan Peiris should be disbarred. 

Judge Watkins ignores the SROG responses pled in the opposition and alleges the late payment was not material.  

That is NOT what the settlement states at section (u). It is believed that Judge Watkins has NOT read the entire settlement, she has simply relied on the lies of Ashan Peiris in his motion giving her snippets to sway the court. 

On or about February 6, 2025, Ashan Peiris reserved various dates for his Motion to Enforce in Hart v LaSalle [drafted by other lawyers] and then removes them from calendar.  This is because he believes there is no settlement and he does not want the ruling to affect how Judge Cochran is going to rule on the same settlement.  

Even Jade Tran, the NUT, goes on to write on March 6, 2025: 

If you give proper notice and Mr. Peiris decides not to appear, we will not be agreeing to produce our clients for further depositions, especially when it has already been decided that the settlement has been withdrawn. 

Hart Answers the Cross-Complaint on March 24, 2025.  She pleads breach by non-payment, bad faith and impossibility.  This is important as to issue/claim preclusion and doctrine of estoppel. Remember, Judge Watkins has ALL of this in the papers before her when she arrives to the insane order to make a pro per plaintiff have to move while litigating and with rents skyrocketing and do it in 3 weeks.  Judge Sergio Tapia ALSO has all of this and is required to act [Canon 3D(1)].  Hart has learned that Tapia is the one who made Judge Watkins the Assistant Supervising Judge - no wonder he is not acting. 

At this same time, Hart is moving Department 1 to relate the cases [Case No. 1 and Case No. 3]. She has to do so because Judge Cochran would not relate.   A sudden Motion to Enforce goes on calendar on or about March 13, 2025, this is also important because Ashan Peiris lies in the new Supplemental filing that he "immediately" moved to enforce.  This is now over 3 months after Hart v Dupree is filed. 

February 19, 2025:

MR. PEIRIS: WE WANT BOTH CASES DISMISSED AND THE OTHER

CONDITIONS MET.

THE COURT: WELL, THE OTHER JUDGE -- THE OTHER JUDGE HAS VACATED

THE SETTLEMENT? IS THAT WHAT WATKINS DID?

MR. PEIRIS: SHE VACATED THE OSC. AND SO WE INTEND TO FILE THE

SAME MOTION ON THE SETTLEMENT.

THE COURT: WELL, WHAT'S HOLDING YOU UP?

MR. PEIRIS: THE HEARING DATE. WE COULDN’T GET

THE COURT: YOU HAVEN’T FILED ANYTHING?

THE COURT: YOUR STANDING AROUND. 

MR. PEIRIS: BUT WE COULDN’T GET EARLIER ACTION.

This is the "immediate" action he took and let's not forget a week earlier he vacated his reservation in the 2nd case. This is all in the papers ignored by Watkins.  Who is stirring the pot in Dept. T? 

He also lies NOW that plaintiff would NOT give the $82,500 back.  A new claim. On December 5, 2024, she contacted him by email to return the funds. He did not respond. She also does not spend a penny [towards debt accumulated over the 5 year case] of the money until after the new Order on April 11, 2025.

Another fascinating tidbit, Ashan Peiris writes Jade Tran around May 6, 2025, that he is "stipulating to continue trial" but kept Hart out of the conversation while alleging there is a settlement and refusing to produce Kyle Dupree for deposition. Jade Tran has an obligation under the new bar rules to report Ashan Peiris, but don't hold your breath.   

So...after the cases are related on March 27, 2025, Judge Cochran is angry and on April 3, 2025, puts a 402 evidentiary hearing on calendar. 

Evidentiary Hearing 402 EC re Breach [2 hrs per side] is scheduled for 04/10/25 at

10:00 AM in Department 16 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

Evidentiary Hearing 402 EC re Breach [2 hrs per side] is scheduled for 04/11/25 at

10:00 AM in Department 16 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

This is an improper use of the 402 hearing. Parties are given one week. She goes in ex-parte for more time to get witnesses served.  It is denied as, "not exigent." Majority of witnesses to include those to prove breach by disclosure do not appear.

Hart and Ashan Peiris are sworn in.  Brian Vukadinovich wrote a Guest Blog about his perception of the very funny hearing, but here are some take aways.

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO I REALLY WANT TO UNDERSTAND

WHAT RELIEF YOU'RE SEEKING HERE. SO ARE YOU SEEKING AN ORDER THAT YOUR CLIENT PAY THE WHOLE AMOUNT, THERE BE A DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE...

MR. PEIRIS: WE WOULD ALSO LIKE THE DISMISSAL OF THE OTHER CASE, BUT...

THE COURT: DO I HAVE JURISDICTION TO DO THAT?

MR. PEIRIS: NO BUT -- YOU DON'T. YOU DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION.

Mr. Peiris then admits his conspiracy:

MR. PEIRIS: BUT I THINK I COULD USE THE RULINGS IN THIS CASE AND

THE FINDINGS TO MAKE THE MOTION IN THE OTHER CASE, AND THAT

WOULD –

And in the end, he was left with NOTHING but money for dismissal ONLY.

THE COURT: OKAY. OKAY. SO LET ME GO BACK TO SOMETHING. THE DRIFT HERE IS WHAT I'M LOOKING AT BEFORE ME IN TERMS OF WHAT

DEFENDANTS' RELIEF IS -- WHAT RELIEF IS AVAILABLE TO DEFENDANT IS --DOES THAT RELIEF BOIL DOWN TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT MINUS 90 FOR A DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION?

MS. HART: AND I WOULD AGREE TO THAT.

MR. PEIRIS: IT'S NOT THAT -- IT'S NOT THE RELIEF -- IT'S NOT THE

RELIEF THAT WE'RE SEEKING.

THE COURT: SO PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTION.

MR. PEIRIS: IT'S NOT THE RELIEF THAT WE'RE SEEKING, BUT FROM WHAT THE COURT IS IMPLYING, IT'S THE ONLY RELIEF THAT CAN BE PROVIDED.

THE COURT: YES. THAT IS SUCCINCTLY PUT.

ALL RIGHTY. SO I HAVE A COUPLE OF OPTIONS HERE. I COULD KIND OF PROCEED TO RULING. I CAN -- I CAN ASK YOU -- WE CAN GET BACK

TOGETHER TOMORROW AND ACCOMMODATE YOUR OTHER APPEARANCE. WE CAN DO A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS.

SO LET ME ASK THE DEFENSE ONE MORE TIME: DO YOU SEEK THE RULING I DESCRIBED UPON -- UPON -- UPON CLEARANCE OF A PAYMENT FOR THE AMOUNT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION?

MR. PEIRIS: WOULD IT BE ALL RIGHT IF I GOT BACK TO YOU TOMORROW? THE COURT: OKAY. IT'S SO GOOD FOR YOU [PLAINTIFF] THAT HE'S NOT EVEN SURE HE WANTS TO SAY "YEAH" TO IT RIGHT NOW. I AM NOT -- TO RECAP, THE DEAL -- THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS STRUCTURED IN AWAY THAT THE RELIEF I'VE DESCRIBED IS REALLY THE ONLY RELIEF I'M - I HAVE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE. CREDIT FOR THE AMOUNT PAID, 282 MINUS 90. UPON CLEARANCE OF THE -- OF THE TOTAL PAYMENT, PLAINTIFF DISMISSES THIS ACTION. AND THAT WOULD BE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS CASE.

This would be what Ashan Peiris would go on to LIE about in over 5 filings was HE prevailing on his motion.  As the Amended RJN filed in opposition to his duplicate motion in the 2nd case, he did NOT obtain ANY relief.  This is also claim and issue preclusion and res judicata.  The opposition also prepare columns for Judge Watkins  to show her how ALL was previously litigated but according to her, she does not have to comply because the case is "not related." She is reinventing decades of case law.   

So, Ashan Peiris comes back to court on April 11, 2025, and agrees to pay on the NEW terms and new amounts.  He has still not appeared in Watkins case since January 2025.

MR. PEIRIS: YES, YOUR HONOR. I WAS ABLE TO SPEAK TO MY CLIENTS.

AND UNDERSTANDING THE COURT'S INDICATION, I BELIEVE THAT THE CLIENTS ARE GENERALLY AGREEABLE TO THE COURT'S PROPOSAL.

A NEW AGREEMENT.

MS. HART: OH, SO, AS TO THE -- I KNOW YOU ARE NOT CARVING OUT

TERMS. WE ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT MONEY. BUT ANY 1542 WAIVER

WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY TIME PERIOD THAT IS

OUTSIDE THIS LAWSUIT... AND I THINK YOU'VE SAID THAT TODAY. AND

I KNOW YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE TERMS, BUT I'M JUST

MAKING THAT CLEAR ON THE RECORD,

THAT IT SIMPLY HAS TO DO WITH HART VS. SULLIVAN. AND I

THINK YOU'VE SAID THAT TODAY.

THE COURT: I THINK I DID. OKAY. SO, EVERYBODY HOLD UP.

This was important to make sure that the 1542 waiver was no longer in the settlement, was not being enforced and could not be used to interfere with Watkins' case.   Despite ALL of this Ashan Peiris goes to Judge Watkins in late May 2025,  and asks to throw plaintiff out of her home alleging that the now 1st payment was eventually paid in the 2nd check [6 months later] and so that triggered the old "90 days to vacate" but it was 2 checks and could not because Judge Cochran said Hart did not have to move with the second payment, AND counsel agreed to the new terms thereby waiving the old terms. Once that check was paid knowing that Hart did not have to vacate, and the amount of the second check changed, they could no longer rely on the old terms. 

Payment for NO move out, which is why she still lives at the property. Watkins would literally accuse Hart of nefarious conduct and scheming. 

May 9, 2025:  THAT'S WHY IN THE RELIEF THAT WAS ORDERED IT COULD NOT INCLUDE THE ALLOCATION FOR THE OTHER CASE, AND IT COULD NOT INCLUDE REQUIRING MOVING OFF THE PREMISES. WE

DISCUSSED ALL THOSE THINGS, AND THAT TRANSCRIPT MAKES

EMINENTLY CLEAR WHAT MY RULING COVERS AND WHAT IT

DOESN'T, WHAT CASE IT PERTAINS TO AND WHAT CASE IT DOES

NOT ENCOMPASS.

This supports that the $109,500 second payment had nothing to do with Hart v LaSalle. 

On May 6, 2025, LaSalle defendants move to dismiss ALL matters in Hart v Dupree as "moot."  The court grants on May 9, 2025.  Being that they sued for specific performance they are now waiving the ability to ask the court to enforce the settlement.   This legal doctrine forbids Judge Watkins from letting them revive the claim.   

Judge Watkins says on the record:  I don't care about the other case. 

She then scolds Hart like a child that she is not complying with the agreement refusing to understand that under 664.6 she cannot CHANGE the new terms agreed to on the record on April 10, 2025 and April 11, 2025. 

She now goes back in time and revives the 90 day at Ashan Peiris request to move out from the April final payment despite the order that plaintiff does not have to vacate, and orders her to vacate and makes this public order a breach of the clause to keep Legacy from knowing the terms. A material breach.  Her vicious tentative says:  Hart cannot refuse payment to delay vacating."  Had she only READ the FREAKEN opposition she would have seen that the $192,500 was paid and dismissal was entered according to the new terms. Plaintiff could not have known that the LOWLIFE Ashan Peiris was plotting with LaSalle Property Fund Reit, Inc., LaSalle Investment Management, David Doherty, Larry Lum, and Jonathan Kyle Dupree to send her a copy of a "void" check [a now third check never referenced in any settlement so to start some non-existent clock.] Watkins also NOW backtracks and says that the Notice from January 3, 2025 and her Order now means nothing. Don't let the doctrine of fairness persuade this judge who will have her career over if any physical assault of HART happens at any illegal lock out.  A Sheriff will remove by force. Hart is NOT moving and not giving her home to anyone. Watkins seems to be accusing Hart of doing something improper by filing the withdrawal when it was SHE who suggested it and everyone acted on it. 

The alarming Order not only disregards that the 2nd and final payment was made by another judge, and she has NO authority to add terms to it or change the NEW oral terms under section 664.6.  And the settlement does not obligate Hart to take a third payment.  She focuses on section (c) but (u) makes a 6-month delay in payment after suing to not have to pay, a material breach. She acts like it's a big discovery that plaintiff lives at the property.  Hart makes this clear in her declaration IGNORED by the court and argues impossibility in her December 2, 2024 lawsuit, [Amended RJN, Ex. "1"] as well as at the  April 10, 2025 hearing and in her Joint Reply filed in this case on June 6, 2025.  So here, again, Judge Watkins lies in a public filing spewing her hate.  If she is so bothered by Hart perhaps she should get the heck off the case so she does not taint the jury. Check number 2 is NONE of Judge Watkins business and she cannot change the oral terms as to it. 

She has to know what she is doing is wrong so who has set this all in motion?

Hart is not moving and is prepared for whatever the evil LASC has in store for her next.  The $90,000 will never be paid. Should anything happen to her - please make sure all that are responsible are held accountable. And please make sure Ashan Peiris and Kyle Dupree go to jail.  If there was a REAL settlement Ashan Peiris would not have asked Judge Cochran to dismiss Judge Watkins case.  But clearly something and someone did something nefarious between April 22, 2025 and May 9, 2025 to put this in motion and it aint gonna get anywhere but end careers and embarrass LASC once again. 

Judge Watkins and Wilson Elser are coming for someone's property and doing it illegally.  Under the constitution Hart will protect her property.  With all the breaches and Judge Watkins' unnecessary order she herself has caused breach.  We are NOW coming for their careers.  

Hopeful prediction: She ends up working from home in the same department Judge Falls is now in. 

She then ignores Ashan Peiris acquiescing to "breach" in the April 11, 2025 Order and prohibits Hart from propounding discovery on the defendants when the unconscionable clause comes with a caveat: unless there is breach.  She just did not read the entire clause and then states:

Defendants have established the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff has not established why it should not be enforced. The Settlement Agreement provides that Plaintiff will not prosecute discovery against the Agreement’s signatories, who include Dupree. (SA, par. 2(m).) 

BUT....the actual INSANE clause states:

Defendants will comply with Judge Watkins order, dated October 25, 2024, in Lawsuit 2 no later than November 15, 2024 which includes a $250 sanction check. Plaintiff will not make motions against Defendants, serve Defendants with discovery in this action, including subpoenas for deposition or appearance at trial unless there is a breach, or a court finds that this is not an enforceable clause.

April 11, 2025 Order:   Breach is conceded as to the timing of payment after the first payment. This means defendant or witness Jonathan Kyle Dupree has to be deposed. She literally denied my motion to compel. 

She has the gall to write: There is nothing in the transcripts of the proceedings in the Hart v Sullivan case or ruling of Judge Cochran which affect the outcome of this motion.

April 11, 2025 Order Hart v Sullivan:  After conferring with plaintiff (self-represented) and counsel for defendant, the Court issues the following ruling:

The motion to enforce settlement is granted, as fully reflected in the notes of the official court reporter and incorporated herein by reference.

This judge appears to live on another planet.  Hart intends to move for a stay the case as well until the order on not allowing defendants to be deposed or take the stand. This is utter lunacy what judges force pro per litigants to go through. 

The court's bizarre interpretation of the terminating motion is exactly that and will be reversed on appeal.  Discovery abuse, breaching court orders [she clearly did not even remember her prior 3 sanction orders against them] and dodging discovery for YEARS warrants terminating sanctions no matter how biased this judge is.  How has Hart managed to get this far with all of her "incoherent" filings?  Apparently a 400-page separate Statement from Ashton McKinnon with 40 line paragraphs was coherent. 

It likely was not the brightest thing to say she was "not considering Hart v Sullivan," considering that is where Res Judicata and Issue Preclusion come in.  This is what happens when you don't read oppositions and rely on Ashan Peiris who this VERY judge called an "embarrassment to Wilson Else Law Firm." She knows he is responsible in part for the end of Judge Falls career, so why play into it?  

Stay tuned...because this is going to get much uglier and NO agreement to waive future claims will ever be enforced in the new case because they held up payment for 6 months that led to the vacating agreement becoming moot.  Perhaps she could have ruled on the stay request but that would have been too much to ask for this vindictive out-of-control judge.