This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/21/2021 at 08:18:48 (UTC).

FIRST LEGAL NETWORK, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS PEARSON & SCHACHTER, A CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 12/17/2020 FIRST LEGAL NETWORK, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against PEARSON SCHACHTER, A CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0468

  • Filing Date:

    12/17/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

FIRST LEGAL NETWORK LLC A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Defendants

SCHACHTER MICHAEL

PEARSON & SCHACHTER A CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION

PEARSON ROBIN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

MARTIN GREGG A.

Defendant Attorney

PEARSON ROBIN M. M.

 

Court Documents

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

5/6/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

5/6/2021: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

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

5/6/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration Of Robin M. Pearson In Support Of Motion To Change Venue

5/6/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration Of Robin M. Pearson In Support Of Motion To Change Venue

Motion for Change of Venue - Motion for Change of Venue

5/6/2021: Motion for Change of Venue - Motion for Change of Venue

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration Of Michael G. Schachter In Support Of Motion To Change Venue

5/6/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration Of Michael G. Schachter In Support Of Motion To Change Venue

Answer - Answer

5/6/2021: Answer - Answer

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

12/17/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Complaint - Complaint

12/17/2020: Complaint - Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

12/17/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

12/17/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Summons - Summons on Complaint

12/17/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/21/2023
  • Hearing12/21/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/16/2022
  • Hearing06/16/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2021
  • Hearing09/15/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Change of Venue

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Change of Venue scheduled for 09/15/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: PEARSON & SCHACHTER, a California Professional Law Corporation (Defendant); Robin Pearson (Defendant); Michael Schachter (Defendant); As to: FIRST LEGAL NETWORK, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2021
  • DocketMotion for Change of Venue; Filed by: PEARSON & SCHACHTER, a California Professional Law Corporation (Defendant); Robin Pearson (Defendant); Michael Schachter (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: PEARSON & SCHACHTER, a California Professional Law Corporation (Defendant); Robin Pearson (Defendant); Michael Schachter (Defendant); As to: FIRST LEGAL NETWORK, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2021
  • DocketDeclaration Declaration Of Robin M. Pearson In Support Of Motion To Change Venue; Filed by: PEARSON & SCHACHTER, a California Professional Law Corporation (Defendant); Robin Pearson (Defendant); Michael Schachter (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2021
  • DocketMemorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by: PEARSON & SCHACHTER, a California Professional Law Corporation (Defendant); Robin Pearson (Defendant); Michael Schachter (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2021
  • DocketDeclaration Declaration Of Michael G. Schachter In Support Of Motion To Change Venue; Filed by: PEARSON & SCHACHTER, a California Professional Law Corporation (Defendant); Robin Pearson (Defendant); Michael Schachter (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2021
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: PEARSON & SCHACHTER, a California Professional Law Corporation (Defendant); Robin Pearson (Defendant); Michael Schachter (Defendant); As to: FIRST LEGAL NETWORK, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 06/16/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 12/21/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: FIRST LEGAL NETWORK, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (Plaintiff); As to: PEARSON & SCHACHTER, a California Professional Law Corporation (Defendant); Robin Pearson (Defendant); Michael Schachter (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: FIRST LEGAL NETWORK, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (Plaintiff); As to: PEARSON & SCHACHTER, a California Professional Law Corporation (Defendant); Robin Pearson (Defendant); Michael Schachter (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: FIRST LEGAL NETWORK, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (Plaintiff); As to: PEARSON & SCHACHTER, a California Professional Law Corporation (Defendant); Robin Pearson (Defendant); Michael Schachter (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20STLC10468 Hearing Date: September 15, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION\r\nTO CHANGE VENUE

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendants\r\nPearson & Schachter, Robin Pearson, and Michael Schachter

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff First Legal Network, LLC

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

\r\n\r\n

(CCP §§ 395, 396)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants’ Motion to Change Venue is DENIED.\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

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

\r\n\r\n

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013,\r\n1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§\r\n12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: Filed on September 1,\r\n2021 [ ]\r\nLate [ ] None

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof September 13, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On December 17, 2020, Plaintiff First Legal Network, LLC\r\n(“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Pearson & Schachter (the\r\n“Corporation”), Robin Pearson (“Robin”), and Michael Schachter (“Michel”) (collectively,\r\n“Defendants”). Defendants filed an Answer and the instant Motion to Change\r\nVenue (the “Motion”) on May 6, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 1. No reply\r\nbrief was filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

As to individual defendants, Code of Civil Procedure\r\nsection 395 provides, in pertinent part, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law\r\nand subject to the power of the court to transfer actions or proceedings as\r\nprovided in this title, the superior court in the county where the\r\ndefendants or some of them reside at the commencement of the action is the\r\nproper court for the trial of the action…Subject to subdivision (b),\r\nif a defendant has contracted to perform an obligation in a particular county,\r\nthe superior court in the county where the obligation is to be performed, where\r\nthe contract in fact was entered into, or where the defendant or any defendant\r\nresides at the commencement of the action is a proper court for the trial of an\r\naction founded on that obligation, and the county where the obligation is\r\nincurred is the county where it is to be performed, unless there is a special\r\ncontract in writing to the contrary.”

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In an action against a corporation, the action may be\r\ncommenced in “the county where the contract was made or is to be performed, or\r\nwhere the obligation or liability arises, or the breach occurs; or in the\r\ncounty where the principal place of business of such corporation is situated\r\nsubject to the power of the court to change the place of trial as in other\r\ncases.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 395.5.) “[A] corporate defendant…seeking…an order\r\n[changing venue] has the burden of negating the propriety of venue as laid on\r\nall possible grounds. [Citation].” (Anaheim Extrusion Co. v. Superior\r\nCourt (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 1201, 1203.) (Italics in original.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In addition, when an individual is sued\r\nas an alter ego, the alter ego allegations place the individual defendant in\r\nthe same position as the corporate defendant and Code of Civil Procedure\r\nsection 395.5 applies. (Lebastchi v. Superior Court (1995) 33\r\nCal.App.4th 1465, 1470-71.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nDiscussion\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff filed this action alleging breach of contract,\r\nbook account, account stated, and quantum meruit causes of action. (Compl., pp.\r\n1-6.) It alleges that the Corporation does business in Contra Costa, that\r\nDefendants Robin and Michael are residents of Contra Costa County, and that\r\nDefendants Robin and Michael are the alter ego of the corporate Defendant. (Id.\r\nat ¶¶ 1-10.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendants argue venue is improper because no contract\r\nwas entered into in Los Angeles and because no defendant is a resident of this\r\ncounty. (Mot., pp. 1-2.) Defendant Robin provides her declaration stating she\r\ndid not reside in this county when the action commenced and states she\r\ncurrently resides at 4287 Quail Run Place, Danville, CA in Contra Costa County.\r\n(Id., Robin Decl, ¶ 2.) Defendant Michael also submits his declaration\r\nstating that he resided in Contra Costa County at all applicable times. (Id.,\r\nMichael Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.) Further, Defendants submit a copy of the Corporation’s Statement\r\nof Information demonstrating that it is located in Contra Costa County. (Id.\r\nat ¶ 4, Exh. A.) Both Defendant Robin and Defendant Michael argue that, if a\r\ncontract exists between the parties, then it was neither entered into nor\r\ncontemplated to be performed in Los Angeles County. (Id., Michael and\r\nRobin Decls., ¶¶ 3.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In opposition, Plaintiff submits a copy of the parties’\r\nalleged agreement and argues that Defendants were obligated to perform in Los Angeles.\r\n(Oppo., p. 2, Ely Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. A.) Specifically, Plaintiff states\r\nDefendants were obligated to make their payments in this county. Plaintiff\r\nprovides several copies of invoices with a Los Angeles address that were sent\r\nto Defendant and explains that Defendant was required to deliver payments to\r\nLos Angeles County. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-8, Exh. B.) Indeed, venue is proper in\r\nthe county where payments due under a contract are received. (Anaheim Extrusion Company, Inc. v. Superior Court of\r\nOrange County (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d\r\n1201, 1203-04.) Notably, Defendants did not file a reply brief disputing\r\npayments were directed to Defendant at Los Angeles county address. Thus,\r\nDefendants have not demonstrated venue is improper.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

IV. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’\r\nMotion to Change Venue is DENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where FIRST LEGAL NETWORK LLC A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MARTIN GREGG ADAM