This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/06/2020 at 05:13:48 (UTC).

HARDER LLP VS LUCAS JARACH, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 06/13/2019 HARDER LLP filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against LUCAS JARACH. 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:

    *******5686

  • Filing Date:

    06/13/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

HARDER LLP

Defendants

RIOS OSVALDO

JARACH LUCAS

VEINBERG NICOLAS

RIVERSIDE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

SUSMAN JORDAN DAVID

SUSMAN JORDAN

Defendant Attorney

FLYNN FRANCIS

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) ...)

7/24/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) ...)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)

8/4/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)

Answer - Answer

4/20/2020: Answer - Answer

Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer - Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

4/29/2020: Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer - Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

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

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

2/21/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

11/6/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

11/6/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

11/6/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

10/28/2019: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

10/22/2019: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

10/11/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order Stipulation For Court To Dismiss Complaint As To Defendant Lucas Jarach & Retain Jurisdiction To Enforce Settlement Agreement [Ccp 664.6]

8/20/2019: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order Stipulation For Court To Dismiss Complaint As To Defendant Lucas Jarach & Retain Jurisdiction To Enforce Settlement Agreement [Ccp 664.6]

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

7/11/2019: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Summons - Summons on Complaint

6/13/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

6/13/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

6/13/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

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

6/13/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

11 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/16/2022
  • Hearing06/16/2022 at 10:30 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
  • 12/10/2020
  • Hearing12/10/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2020
  • Hearing09/01/2020 at 10:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons scheduled for 08/04/2020 at 09:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 08/04/2020; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer scheduled for 09/01/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Court Order Re: Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) ...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) ...) of 07/24/2020; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2020
  • DocketMotion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer; Filed by: HARDER LLP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
21 More Docket Entries
  • 07/12/2019
  • DocketERROR with ROA message definition 129 with DismissalParty:1678561 resulted in empty message

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2019
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by: HARDER LLP (Plaintiff); As to: LUCAS JARACH (Defendant); NICOLAS VEINBERG (Defendant); OSVALDO RIOS (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 12/10/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 06/16/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: HARDER LLP (Plaintiff); As to: LUCAS JARACH (Defendant); NICOLAS VEINBERG (Defendant); OSVALDO RIOS (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: HARDER LLP (Plaintiff); As to: LUCAS JARACH (Defendant); NICOLAS VEINBERG (Defendant); OSVALDO RIOS (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: HARDER LLP (Plaintiff); As to: LUCAS JARACH (Defendant); NICOLAS VEINBERG (Defendant); OSVALDO RIOS (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC05686    Hearing Date: August 04, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., August 4, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Harder, LLP v. Jarach, et al. COMPL. FILED: 06-13-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC05686 DISC. C/O: 11-10-20

NOTICE: OK MOTION C/O: 11-25-20

TRIAL DATE: 12-10-20

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; REQUEST FOR OSC RE SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Nicolas Veinberg

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS & COMPLAINT

(CCP § 418.10; CRC 3.110)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Nicolas Veinberg’s request to quash service of the Summons & Complaint is PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT. However, his request to set an OSC re Sanctions for Failure to Comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.110 is GRANTED ON THE CONDITION THAT, before the hearing, he files an amended proof of service that complies with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a.

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: None filed as of July 30, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of July 30, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On June 13, 2019, Plaintiff Harder, LLP (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and account stated against Defendants Lucas Jarach, Nicolas Veinberg (“Veinberg”), Osvaldo Rios, and Riverside Entertainment Group, LLC.

Plaintiff filed a proof of service demonstrating that Defendant Veinberg was personally served with the Summons and Complaint on February 7, 2020. (2/21/20 Proof of Service.) On March 9, 2020, Defendant Veinberg filed the instant Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint (the “Motion”). Defendant Veinberg thereafter filed an Answer to the Complaint on April 20, 2020.

To date, no opposition to the Motion has been filed.

  1. Legal Standard

“A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes: ¶ To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) A defendant has 30 days after the service of the summons to file a responsive pleading, or 40 days if service was effectuated by substitute service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 412.20, subd. (a)(3); Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).)

  1. Discussion

Defendant Veinberg argues that, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.110, service was untimely and thus the Court must quash service of the Summons and Complaint. (Mot., p. 4:2-6.) However, Defendant Veinberg filed an Answer to the Complaint on April 20, 2020. Thus, his request to quash service is MOOT.

However, Defendant also requests that the Court issue an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed on Plaintiff as well as an assessment of costs. (Mot., p. 4:7-10.) Rule 3.110, subdivision (b) requires that the Complaint to be served on all named defendants and that proofs of service on those defendants be filed with the court within 60 days after filing the Complaint. The remedy for failure to serve within the specified time is a potential award of sanctions. Rule 3.110, subdivision (f) provides that “[i]f a party fails to serve and file pleadings as required under this rule and has not obtained an order extending time to serve its pleadings, the court may issue an order to show cause why sanctions shall not be imposed.” Here, Defendant Veinberg was served on February 7, 2020, more than 60 days after the Complaint was originally filed on June 13, 2019.

However, the Court notes that the certificate of service filed with the Motion does not comply with the proof of service requirements under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a. The Court is inclined to grant Defendant’s request to issue an order to show cause provided that Defendant Veinberg files an amended proof of service before the hearing that complies with Section 1013a.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Nicolas Veinberg’s request to quash service of the Summons & Complaint is PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT. However, Defendant Veinberg’s request to set an OSC re Sanctions for Failure to Comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.110 is GRANTED ON THE CONDITION THAT, before the hearing, he files an amended proof of service that complies with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.