This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/17/2020 at 01:45:20 (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 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

Answer - Answer

6/6/2019: Answer - Answer

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

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

Answer - Answer

1/29/2019: Answer - Answer

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

12/31/2018: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

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)

25 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
  • Hearing04/06/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Sanctions

    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
  • 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
  • 09/14/2020
  • DocketMotion for Sanctions; Filed by: Egal Shahbaz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Sanctions scheduled for 04/06/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2020
  • DocketObjection Plaintiff Egal Shahbaz's Objections to Simon Y. Song, Esq's Declaration In Support of Defendant's Motion and Motion to Exclude Plaintiff Egal Shahbaz's Testimony at Trial; Filed by: Egal Shahbaz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/30/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 06/07/2021 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
39 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: 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.