Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/08/2021 at 01:29:04 (UTC).

EGAL SHAHBAZ VS SAB INVESTMENT PROPERTY, LLC, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 10/30/2018 EGAL SHAHBAZ filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against SAB INVESTMENT PROPERTY, LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3616

  • Filing Date:

    10/30/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

SHAHBAZ EGAL

Defendants

SAB INVESTMENT PROPERTY LLC

LIDO PIZZA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SHAHBAZ JACOB ARASH

15760 Ventura Blvd

Encino, CA 91436

Defendant Attorneys

MCNAMARA RYAN

KATOFSKY JEFF

 

Court Documents

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Ruling

9/15/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Ruling

Reply (name extension) - Reply TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 128.5

3/29/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 128.5

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

9/11/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Motion for Sanctions - Motion for Sanctions

9/14/2020: Motion for Sanctions - Motion for Sanctions

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

9/20/2019: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories-Set Two; Points and Authorities In Support; and Declaration of Jacob Shahbaz

2/4/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories-Set Two; Points and Authorities In Support; and Declaration of Jacob Shahbaz

Objection (name extension) - Objection to Declaration of Simon Song, Esq., In Support of Defendant's Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories-Set Two

2/4/2020: Objection (name extension) - Objection to Declaration of Simon Song, Esq., In Support of Defendant's Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories-Set Two

Objection (name extension) - Objection Objection to Declaration of Simon Song, Esq., In Support of Defendant's Motion to Compel Request for Production - Set One

2/4/2020: Objection (name extension) - Objection Objection to Declaration of Simon Song, Esq., In Support of Defendant's Motion to Compel Request for Production - Set One

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

2/5/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Reply (name extension) - Reply TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO PROPOUNDED UPON PLAINTIFF AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

2/11/2020: Reply (name extension) - Reply TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO PROPOUNDED UPON PLAINTIFF AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

2/18/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogator...)

2/18/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogator...)

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

9/3/2019: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

6/6/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

3/6/2019: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

Answer - Answer

1/29/2019: Answer - Answer

Complaint - Complaint

10/30/2018: Complaint - Complaint

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

10/30/2018: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

30 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/07/2021
  • Hearing06/07/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Sanctions)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Sanctions scheduled for 04/06/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 04/06/2021; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2021
  • DocketReply TO DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 128.5; Filed by: Egal Shahbaz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2021
  • DocketOpposition to Motion for Sanctions; Filed by: Sab Investment Property, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion re: EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF, EGAL SHAHBAZ?S TESTIMONY AT TRIAL; DECLARATION OF SIMON Y. SONG, ESQ. EXHIBITS: Filed By: Sab Investment Property, LLC (Defendant); Result: Denied; Result Date: 09/15/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Egal Shahbaz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2020
  • DocketNotice of Change on Hearing Date on Plaintiff Egal Shahbaz's Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Pursuant to Civil Code Of Procedure 128.5; Filed by: Egal Shahbaz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other to Exclude Plaintiff's Testimony at...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion - Other to Exclude Plaintiff's Testimony at Trial scheduled for 09/15/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 09/15/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
44 More Docket Entries
  • 11/08/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/02/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/28/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Egal Shahbaz (Plaintiff); As to: Sab Investment Property, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2018
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Egal Shahbaz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2018
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Egal Shahbaz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Egal Shahbaz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2018
  • DocketUpdated -- Proof of Personal Service: Status Date changed from 12/31/2018 to 10/30/2018

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC13616    Hearing Date: April 6, 2021    Dept: 26

Shahbaz v. SAB Investment Property, LLC, et alMOTION FOR SANCTIONS

(Code Civ. Proc. § 128.5)

TENTATIVE RULING:

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Egal Shahbaz (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for discrimination on the basis of disability against Defendant SAB Investment Property, LLC (“Defendant”) on October 30, 2018.

Defendant filed a Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Testimony at Trial (“the Motion to Exclude”) on May 22, 2020. On September 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Sanctions (“the Motion for Sanctions”).

On September 15, 2020, the Court denied the Motion to Exclude. Defendant filed an opposition to the Motion for Sanctions on March 23, 2021 and Plaintiff replied on March 29, 2021.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for sanctions against Defendant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5. Under section 128.5, the judge may order a party or counsel, or both, “to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by another party as a result of actions or tactics, made in bad faith, that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5, subd. (a).) The statute also provides a party making or opposing a written motion or the filing and service of a complaint, cross-complaint, answer or other responsive pleading a 21-day safe harbor provision where the pleading or paper can be withdrawn or appropriately corrected. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5, subd. (f)(1)(B).)

The Motion for Sanctions complies with the 21-day safe-harbor provision: it was served on Defendant on May 22, 2020 but not filed until September 14, 2020. (Motion, Proof of Service.)

“Frivolous” means conduct that is either “totally and completely without merit” or “for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5, subd. (b)(2); Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 C3d 637, 649-650.) This is an objective standard that asks whether “any reasonable attorney would agree that the motion is totally devoid of merit.” (Chitsazzadeh v. Kramer & Kaslow (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 676, 683-684.)

On the other hand, subjective bad faith requires “a showing of an improper purpose . . . on the part of the attorney or party to be sanctioned.” (In re Marriage of Sahafzadeh-Taeb & Taeb (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 124, 135 [citing Levy v. Blum (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 625, 635].) “ ‘Good faith, or its absence, involves a factual inquiry into the plaintiff's subjective state of mind [citations]: Did he or she believe the action was valid? What was his or her intent or purpose in pursuing it? A subjective state of mind will rarely be susceptible of direct proof; usually the trial court will be required to infer it from circumstantial evidence.’ ” (Gemini Aluminum Corp. v. California Custom Shapes, Inc. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1249, 1263 [citing Knight v. City of Capitola (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 918, 932, disapproved of other grounds by Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 527].)

“[A] frivolous action may in itself be evidence from which a finding of subjective bad faith may be made.” (West Coast, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 702, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 790; accord Summers, supra, 225 Cal.App.3d at p. 1073, 275 Cal.Rptr. 594 [that an action or tactic “is totally and completely without merit ... is certainly evidence that the action is brought in bad faith [citation], because a trial court is entitled to infer from the utter lack of merit that the party knew that it lacked such merit, and yet continued to pursue the action for some ulterior motive”; while a trial court also might “not be willing to draw that inference,” that is a matter for the trial court to decide].)

(In re Marriage of Sahafzadeh-Taeb, supra, 39 Cal.App.5th at 139.)

Defendant’s Motion to Exclude was brought pursuant to Cal. Evidence Code sections 402, 701 and 702. While Plaintiff argues that the Motion to Exclude had no procedural basis, the Court determined that such motion could be brought under Cal. Evidence Code section 402 and was essentially a motion in limine, which could be brought before or during trial. (Minute Order, 9/15/20.) Defendant’s failure to comply with the procedural requirements for a motion in limine, while supporting denial of the motion, did not make the Motion to Exclude inherently procedurally improper. Defendant was entitled to bring the Motion to Exclude from a procedural standpoint.

Plaintiff also argues that the Motion to Exclude was substantively meritless, demonstrating Defendant’s bad faith intent. Defendant moved to exclude Plaintiff’s testimony under Cal. Evidence Code sections 701 or 702. The Court ruled that neither statute was applicable. (Minute Order, 9/15/20, pp. 2-3.) Section 701 allows disqualification of a witness who is (1) “[i]ncapable of expressing himself or herself concerning the matter so as to be understood, either directly or through interpretation by one who can understand him; or (2) [i]ncapable of understanding the duty of a witness to tell the truth.” (Cal. Evid. Code, § 701, subd. (a).) Section 702 requires a witness to have personal knowledge of the matters of which they testify. (Cal. Evid. Code, § 702.)

None of Defendant’s evidence addressed Plaintiff’s ability to express himself clearly enough to be understood. Nor did it address whether Plaintiff was capable of understanding the duty to tell the truth. Rather, Defendant’s evidence addressed whether Plaintiff could have personal knowledge of the accessibility violations at the property because of his vision and cognitive impairments. (Motion to Exclude, filed 5/22/20, pp. 4:25-6:5.) The Court found that Defendant’s evidence of Plaintiff’s conditions did not demonstrate Plaintiff lacked personal knowledge of the alleged accessibility violations. (Minute Order, 9/15/20, pp. 2-3.) Defendant sought to extrapolate a particular kind of vision impairment (Plaintiff’s use of a screen reader) and general blurry vision to a broader inability to perceive Plaintiff’s physical surroundings. There was insufficient evidence for the Court to make such an inference. (Ibid.) Defendant also relied on a general list of symptoms persons with brain glioma tumors without any proof that Plaintiff experienced those symptoms. (Ibid.)

Regardless of the deficiencies in Defendant’s evidentiary showing, the Court’s denial of the Motion to Exclude is not enough to demonstrate that Defendant or defense counsel acted in bad faith. In fact, Plaintiff does not specify what improper motive Defendant had in bringing the Motion to Exclude. The Motion for Sanctions only argues that Defendant sought to “silence” Plaintiff but does not explain why seeking to exclude trial testimony based on lack of personal knowledge is improper.

The Court also does not find that the Motion to Exclude was arguably frivolous, or objectively without merit. As explained above, a motion to exclude testimony is not procedurally improper. The Motion to Exclude was also supported by some evidence of Plaintiff’s visual impairment and argument how that impairment impacted Plaintiff’s ability to testify competently. That the Court ultimately disagreed about the inferences that could be drawn about Plaintiff’s knowledge of the accessibility violations does not extend to a finding of total lack of merit.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Egal Shabaz’s Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.Defendant to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC13616    Hearing Date: September 15, 2020    Dept: 26

MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY AT TRIAL

(Cal. Evid. Code § 402, 701, 702)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant SAB Investment Property, LLC’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Testimony at Trial is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Egal Shahbaz (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for discrimination on the basis of disability against Defendant SAB Investment Property, LLC (“Defendant”) on October 30, 2018.

Defendant filed the instant Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Testimony at Trial on May 22, 2020. Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 1, 2020 and Defendant replied on September 3, 2020.

Discussion

The Motion is brought pursuant to Cal. Evidence Code sections 402, 701 and 702. Section 402 provides that “[t]he court may hear and determine the question of the admissibility of evidence out of the presence or hearing of the jury.” (Cal. Evid. Code, § 402, subd. (b).) To the extent Defendant’s request to exclude evidence at trial is essentially a motion in limine, such a motion can be brought “before or during trial.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1112, subd. (f).) Los Angeles Superior Court Rule 3.57 further requires that the Motion “be accompanied by a declaration that includes the following:

(1) Specific identification of the matter alleged to be inadmissible and prejudicial;

(2) A representation to the court that the subject of the motion has been discussed with opposing counsel, and that opposing counsel has either indicated that such matter will be mentioned or displayed in the presence of the jury before it is admitted in evidence or that counsel has refused to stipulate that such matter will not be mentioned or displayed in the presence of the jury unless and until it is admitted in evidence;

(3) A statement of the specific prejudice that will be suffered by the moving party if the motion is not granted;”

(Los Angeles Super. Ct. Rule 3.57, subd. (a).) The Motion does not satisfy these requirements. It appears that the Motion seeks to exclude any testimony by Plaintiff, but does not represent that this was discussed with opposing counsel beforehand. Nor is there a statement of the specific prejudice Defendant will suffer if Plaintiff is permitted to testify.

Finally, Defendant has not shown that Plaintiff’s testimony should be excluded under either Cal. Evidence Code section 701 or 702. Section 701 allows disqualification of a witness who is (1) “[i]ncapable of expressing himself or herself concerning the matter so as to be understood, either directly or through interpretation by one who can understand him; or (2) [i]ncapable of understanding the duty of a witness to tell the truth.” (Cal. Evid. Code, § 701, subd. (a).) Section 702 requires a witness to have personal knowledge of the matters of which they testify. (Cal. Evid. Code, § 702.)

Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot testify regarding the physical condition of the parking lot that allegedly violated the American with Disabilities Act or Cal. Civil Code sections 51, 54 or 54.1.

Defendant specifically points to evidence that Plaintiff is visually impaired and uses a screen reader to access the internet and read websites. (Motion, Song Decl., ¶2 and Exh. A.) Plaintiff also produced a physician’s note in response to discovery that states he is being seen intermittently for treatment of glioma with decreased strength of right side and blurred vision. (Id. at Exh. E.) Another medical report indicated that Plaintiff experienced blurry vision, dizziness, loss of balance, migraines and head pain. (Id. at Exh. G.)

This evidence does not show Plaintiff cannot testify regarding the conditions of Defendant’s property that allegedly denied him full access or that he lacks personal knowledge of the same. The evidence shows that Plaintiff has one or more conditions that affect his vision in a specific way, namely, the need to use a screen reader. It also shows that Plaintiff generally experiences blurry vision. There is nothing to show that the need to use a screen reader is related to Plaintiff’s ability to perceive his physical environment. Nor is there evidence as to how frequently Plaintiff experiences these impairments. The Court will not assume that Plaintiff is incompetent to testify regarding his experiences on Defendant’s property based on this extremely limited evidence. Finally, Plaintiff’s generalizations regarding symptoms experienced by persons with brain glioma tumors is irrelevant to the specific question of Plaintiff’s competence.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendant SAB Investment Property, LLC’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Testimony at Trial is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give notice

Case Number: 18STLC13616    Hearing Date: February 18, 2020    Dept: 26

Shahbaz v. SAB Investment Property, LLC, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant SAB Investment Property, LLC (1) Motion For Order Compelling Plaintiff To Respond to Special Interrogatories; Request for Sanctions; and (2) Motion For Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Request for Production of Documents; Request For Sanctions are GRANTED. PLAINTIFF TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT PLAINTIFF AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $1,245.00 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Egal Shahbaz (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for discrimination on the basis of disability against Defendant SAB Investment Property, LLC (“Defendant”) on October 30, 2018. On August 30, 2019, Defendant served Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents on Plaintiff. (Motions, Song Decl. ¶3 and Exh. A.) As of the filing of the Motions, Defendant had not received verified responses to the discovery requests from Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶¶4-5.) Defendant filed the instant Motions to Compel Plaintiff’s Discovery Responses on November 22, 2019. Plaintiff filed oppositions on February 4, 2020.

Discussion

Plaintiff has failed to serve verified responses as required by the Discovery Code. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.210, et seq.; 2031.210 et seq.) Responses were due by October 4, 2019. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, 2031.250, 1013.) The Motions contend that on October 7, 2019, Plaintiff served Defendant with responses that lacked a verification. (Motion, Song Decl., ¶4 and Exh. B.) The oppositions contend that on October 7, 2019, Plaintiff served verifications to the discovery requests, but there is no documentary evidence to demonstrate this. Nor is there documentary evidence to show that verifications or responses were sent on September 9, 2019 as no exhibits are attached to the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel. (Opp., Shahbaz Decl., ¶¶4-5.)

The failure to timely serve responses, whether containing objections, or facts, or both, results in waiver of all objections. (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 658.) As of the date the Motions were filed—November 22, 2019—Defendant had not received verified responses to the discovery requests from Plaintiff without objection.

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the propounded discovery requests, Defendant is entitled to verified responses without objections to the interrogatories and requests for production within twenty (20) days of notice of this Order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)

The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s failure to respond is a misuse of the discovery procedures. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, et seq.) While the request for sanctions is based solely on an unsuccessful and unjustified opposition, the Court finds it sanctions are appropriate in light of the oppositions’ failure to demonstrate why the relief requested should not be granted. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c); 2031.300, subd. (c).) Sanctions are appropriate in the amount of $1,245.00 based on three hours of attorney time billed at $375.00 per hour, plus two filing fees of $60.00 each. (Motion, Song Decl., ¶9.) Sanctions of $1,245.00, awarded jointly and severally against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, are to be paid within thirty (30) days from notice of this Order.

Defendant SAB Investment Property, LLC (1) Motion For Order Compelling Plaintiff To Respond to Special Interrogatories; Request for Sanctions; and (2) Motion For Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Request for Production of Documents; Request For Sanctions are GRANTED. PLAINTIFF TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT PLAINTIFF AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $1,245.00 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where SAB INVESTMENT PROPERTY LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SHAHBAZ JACOB A