This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/01/2021 at 00:20:56 (UTC).

ELIYAHU ZILBERSTEIN, ET AL. VS ELLIOTT SMITH, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 10/12/2018 ELIYAHU ZILBERSTEIN filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against ELLIOTT SMITH. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2781

  • Filing Date:

    10/12/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Business

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

ZILBERSTEIN ELIYAHU

6356 VAN NUYS LLC

Defendants

SMITH ELLIOTT

CENTRAL BILLING LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

FELDMAN STEPHEN MARK

Defendant Attorney

BEITCHMAN DAVID PRISYON

 

Court Documents

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order Judgment and [Proposed] Order

12/14/2020: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order Judgment and [Proposed] Order

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information - Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

8/17/2020: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information - Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement)

10/21/2020: Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement)

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information - Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

6/22/2020: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information - Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Reply (name extension) - Reply in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees

7/16/2020: Reply (name extension) - Reply in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees)

7/23/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

7/23/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion) - Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion)

9/25/2019: Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion) - Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP motion)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Michelle Seanez

9/25/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Michelle Seanez

Association of Attorney - Association of Attorney NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

9/25/2019: Association of Attorney - Association of Attorney NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

Objection (name extension) - Objection Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Michelle Seanez in Support of Motion to Strike

1/14/2020: Objection (name extension) - Objection Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Michelle Seanez in Support of Motion to Strike

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Opposition to Motion to Strike

1/14/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Opposition to Motion to Strike

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Michelle Seanez in Support of Defendants' Reply

1/21/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Michelle Seanez in Support of Defendants' Reply

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 ...)

1/28/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Special Motion to Strike under CCP Section 425.16 ...)

Motion for Attorney Fees - Motion for Attorney Fees

1/30/2020: Motion for Attorney Fees - Motion for Attorney Fees

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

2/19/2020: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

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

3/18/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Civil Case Cover Sheet

10/12/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

21 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/17/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 08/30/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 12/17/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Stipulation and Order Judgment and [Proposed] Order: Filed By: Central Billing, LLC (Defendant); Result: Granted; Result Date: 12/14/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Stipulation and Order Judgment and [Proposed] Order: Status Date changed from 12/02/2020 to 12/14/2020; Result Date changed from 12/14/2020 to 12/14/2020; As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2020
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Eliyahu Zilberstein, et al. on 10/12/2018, entered Order for Dismissal with prejudice as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 08/30/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause re: Dismissal (Settlement); Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/15/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 10/21/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/26/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 10/21/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Notice of Settlement: Status Date changed from 10/19/2020 to 10/19/2020; As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2020
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by: Stephen Mark Feldman (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
32 More Docket Entries
  • 09/25/2019
  • DocketAssociation of Attorney NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL; Filed by: Eliyahu Zilberstein (Plaintiff); 6356 Van Nuys, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Elliott Smith (Defendant); Central Billing, LLC (Defendant); As to: Eliyahu Zilberstein (Plaintiff); 6356 Van Nuys, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 94 - Hon. James E. Blancarte; Reason: Inventory Transfer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Eliyahu Zilberstein (Plaintiff); 6356 Van Nuys, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: Elliott Smith (Defendant); Central Billing, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Eliyahu Zilberstein (Plaintiff); 6356 Van Nuys, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Jon R. Takasugi in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/10/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/12/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/15/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC12781    Hearing Date: July 23, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Thu., July 23, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Zilberstein, et al. v. Smith, et al. COMP. FILED: 10-12-18

CASE NUMBER: 18STLC12781 DISC. C/O: 09-26-20

NOTICE: OK MOTION C/O: 10-11-20

TRIAL DATE: 10-26-20

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff’s Eliyahu Zilberstein and 6356 Van Nuys, LLC

RESP. PARTY: Defendants Elliot Smith and Central Billing, LLC

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

(CCP § 425.16)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Eliyahu Zilberstein and 6356 Van Nuys, LLC’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is DENIED.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on July 10, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on July 16, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On October 12, 2018, Plaintiffs Eliyahu Zilberstein and 6356 Van Nuys Blvd, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed an action for unfair business practices and injunctive relief against Defendants Elliot Smith and Central Billing, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”). On August 29, 2019, Defendants filed an Answer.

On September 25, 2019, Defendants filed a special motion to strike Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. However, because anti-SLAPP motions are not permitted in limited jurisdiction courts, on January 28, 2020, the Court denied that motion. (1/28/20 Minute Order.)

On January 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees (the “Motion”). On July 10, 2020, Defendants filed an Opposition, and on July 16, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Reply.

II. Legal Standard & Discussion

Plaintiffs bring the instant Motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (c), and argue they are entitled to attorney’s fees because Defendants’ Motion to Strike was denied. (Mot., p. 3:20-4:2.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (c) provides:

“Except as provided in paragraph (2), in any action subject to subdivision (b), a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees and costs. If the court finds that a special motion to strike is frivolous or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to a plaintiff prevailing on the motion, pursuant to section 128.5”

(Emphasis added.)

Under this section, “an award of attorney fees to a defendant prevailing on a special motion to strike is mandatory; a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to fees only upon proof that the defendant’s motion was frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.” (Vargas v. City of Salinas (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1340-41.) Here, the Court denied Defendants’ special motion to strike because it is not permitted in limited jurisdiction court, not because it was found to be frivolous or intending to cause unnecessary delay. (1/28/20 Minute Order.)

Thus, Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is DENIED.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Eliyahu Zilberstein and 6356 Van Nuys, LLC’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is DENIED.

Moving parties are ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC12781    Hearing Date: January 28, 2020    Dept: 25

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Elliot Smith and Central Billing, LLC’s Special Motion to Strike is DENIED.

OPPOSITION: Filed January 14, 2020

REPLY: Filed January 21, 2020

ANALYSIS:

I. Background & Discussion

On October 12, 2018, Plaintiffs Eliy Ahu Zilberstein and 6356 Van Nuys Blvd, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed an action for unfair business practices under Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 and for injunctive relief against Defendants Elliot Smith and Central Billing, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”). On August 29, 2019, Defendants filed an Answer.

On September 25, 2019, Defendants filed the instant Special Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Complaint (the “Motion”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.

However, in a limited jurisdiction court, “[m]otions to strike are allowed only on the ground that the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations of the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (d).) The Court of Appeal recently held: “Thus, construing section 92(d) to permit anti-SLAPP motions to be brought in limited civil cases would undermine the Legislature’s goal of efficient and cost-effective litigation in such cases. [¶] For all these reasons, we conclude that section 92(d) precludes a defendant from bringing a special motion to strike in a limited civil case.” (1550 Laurel Owner's Association, Inc. v. Appellate Division of Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 1146, 1158.)

Because the instant Motion is not permitted in this Court, it is DENIED.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Elliot Smith and Central Billing, LLC’s Special Motion to Strike is DENIED.

Moving parties are ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CENTRAL BILLING LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer FELDMAN STEPHEN MARK