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.
*******5686
06/13/2019
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JAMES E. BLANCARTE
HARDER LLP
RIOS OSVALDO
JARACH LUCAS
VEINBERG NICOLAS
RIVERSIDE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP LLC
SUSMAN JORDAN DAVID
SUSMAN JORDAN
FLYNN FRANCIS
7/24/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) ...)
8/4/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)
4/20/2020: Answer - Answer
4/29/2020: Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer - Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer
2/19/2020: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney
2/21/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service
11/6/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail
11/6/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment
11/6/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail
10/28/2019: 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
10/11/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail
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]
7/11/2019: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal
6/13/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint
6/13/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet
6/13/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order
6/13/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
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
Hearing12/10/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial
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
DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons)
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
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
DocketMinute Order (Court Order Re: Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) ...)
DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) ...) of 07/24/2020; Filed by: Clerk
DocketMotion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer; Filed by: HARDER LLP (Plaintiff)
DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk
DocketERROR with ROA message definition 129 with DismissalParty:1678561 resulted in empty message
DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by: HARDER LLP (Plaintiff); As to: LUCAS JARACH (Defendant); NICOLAS VEINBERG (Defendant); OSVALDO RIOS (Defendant) et al.
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 12/10/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
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
DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse
DocketComplaint; Filed by: HARDER LLP (Plaintiff); As to: LUCAS JARACH (Defendant); NICOLAS VEINBERG (Defendant); OSVALDO RIOS (Defendant) et al.
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: HARDER LLP (Plaintiff); As to: LUCAS JARACH (Defendant); NICOLAS VEINBERG (Defendant); OSVALDO RIOS (Defendant) et al.
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: HARDER LLP (Plaintiff); As to: LUCAS JARACH (Defendant); NICOLAS VEINBERG (Defendant); OSVALDO RIOS (Defendant) et al.
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk
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:
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.
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).)
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.
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.