This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/12/2020 at 02:44:25 (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

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

11/25/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice of Rejection - Application for Default Judgment by Court - Contract or Tort - Notice of Rejection - Application for Default Judgment by Court - Contract or Tort

12/1/2020: Notice of Rejection - Application for Default Judgment by Court - Contract or Tort - Notice of Rejection - Application for Default Judgment by Court - Contract or Tort

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

8/26/2020: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Strike

8/27/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Strike

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer)

9/1/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer)

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

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

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

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

20 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
  • 06/23/2021
  • Hearing06/23/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2021
  • Hearing03/04/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2020
  • DocketNotice of Rejection - Application for Default Judgment by Court - Contract or Tort; Filed by:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2020
  • DocketJudgment By Court - Rejected; Submitted by: HARDER LLP (Plaintiff); As to: OSVALDO RIOS (Defendant); RIVERSIDE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Request for Entry of Default Judgment; Declaration of Jordon Susman: Document changed from Request for Entry of Default / Judgment to Request (name extension); Exact Name: Request for Entry of Default Judgment; Declaration of Jordon Susman; As To Parties changed from RIVERSIDE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC (Defendant), OSVALDO RIOS (Defendant) to RIVERSIDE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC (Defendant), OSVALDO RIOS (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2020
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: HARDER LLP (Plaintiff); As to: OSVALDO RIOS (Defendant); RIVERSIDE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2020
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default Judgment; Declaration of Jordon Susman; Filed by: HARDER LLP (Plaintiff); As to: OSVALDO RIOS (Defendant); RIVERSIDE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC (Defendant); Charge Fee ?: YES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2020
  • DocketDefault entered as to RIVERSIDE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC; OSVALDO RIOS; On the Complaint filed by HARDER LLP on 06/13/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2020
  • DocketDefault entered as to RIVERSIDE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC; OSVALDO RIOS; On the Complaint filed by HARDER LLP on 06/13/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
37 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: September 01, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., September 1, 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 DISC. MOT. C/O: 11-25-20

TRIAL DATE: 12-10-20

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF ANSWER

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Harder LLP

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO STRIKE

(CCP § 435)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Harder LLP’s Motion to Strike Portions of Answer is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

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 August 27, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of August 27, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background & Discussion

On June 13, 2019, Plaintiff Harder LLP (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and account stated against Defendants Lucas Jarach, Nicolas Veinberg (“Veinberg”), Osvaldo Rios, and Riverside Entertainment Group, LLC. Defendant Veinberg filed an Answer on April 20, 2020.

On April 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Strike Portions of Answer (the “Motion”) seeking to strike Defendant Veinberg’s statute of limitations affirmative defense and prayer for attorney’s fees. (Mot., p. 3:2-5.) Defendant Veinberg thereafter filed an Amended Answer eliminating the statute of limitations affirmative defense and request for attorney’s fees. (8/24/20 Amended Answer.)

On August 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Strike. Accordingly, the Motion is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Harder LLP’s Motion to Strike Portions of Answer is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

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.