Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/24/2021 at 01:16:36 (UTC).

JAMES WHELAN VS PRINGREE F TIMOTHY, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 04/25/2019 JAMES WHELAN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against PRINGREE F TIMOTHY. 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:

    *******4072

  • Filing Date:

    04/25/2019

  • 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

WHELAN JAMES

Defendants

TIMOTHY PRINGREE F

LOST & FOUND INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

PINGREE TIMONTHY F. AKA TIMOTHY F. PINGREE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

WEISS RICHARD

Defendant Attorney

KOERNER KELLY A

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Legal Representation of Defendant Los...)

4/22/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Legal Representation of Defendant Los...)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

4/22/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: Motion to Strike Answer of Defendant Lost & Found, Inc.

12/11/2020: Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: Motion to Strike Answer of Defendant Lost & Found, Inc.

Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application Plaintiff's Ex-Parte Applicacation to Advance Hearing Date on Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer to Complaint

1/5/2021: Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application Plaintiff's Ex-Parte Applicacation to Advance Hearing Date on Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer to Complaint

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Yolanda Spoeri Regarding Plaintiff's Ex-Parte Application to Advance Hearing Date on Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer to Complaint

1/5/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Declaration of Yolanda Spoeri Regarding Plaintiff's Ex-Parte Application to Advance Hearing Date on Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer to Complaint

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application Plaintiff's Ex-Parte Applicac...)

1/7/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application Plaintiff's Ex-Parte Applicac...)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

2/24/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial)

10/8/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Non-Jury Trial)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Disqualify Counsel)

11/14/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Disqualify Counsel)

Answer - Answer

6/10/2019: Answer - Answer

Answer - Answer to Complaint by Lost & Found, Inc.

6/12/2019: Answer - Answer to Complaint by Lost & Found, Inc.

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

6/25/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

5/7/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

4/25/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

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

4/25/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

4/25/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Complaint - Complaint

4/25/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Summons - Summons on Complaint

4/25/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

13 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/28/2022
  • Hearing04/28/2022 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
  • 06/07/2021
  • Hearing06/07/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2021
  • Hearing06/07/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Legal Representation of Defendant Lost & Found, Inc. scheduled for 06/07/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: JAMES WHELAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Legal Representation of Defendant Los...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2021
  • DocketThere being no judge available this date, Order to Show Cause Re: Legal Representation of Defendant Lost & Found, Inc. scheduled for 04/22/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion was rescheduled to 06/07/2021 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion re: Motion to Strike Answer of Defendant Lost & Found, Inc.: Filed By: JAMES WHELAN (Plaintiff); Result: Denied; Result Date: 02/24/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Legal Representation of Defendant Lost & Found, Inc. scheduled for 04/22/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 06/07/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
34 More Docket Entries
  • 05/07/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: JAMES WHELAN (Plaintiff); As to: JAMES WHELAN (Plaintiff); Proof of Mailing Date: 04/29/2019; Service Cost: 55.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/22/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/28/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: JAMES WHELAN (Plaintiff); As to: PRINGREE F TIMOTHY (Defendant); a California Corporation LOST & FOUND, INC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: JAMES WHELAN (Plaintiff); As to: PRINGREE F TIMOTHY (Defendant); a California Corporation LOST & FOUND, INC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: JAMES WHELAN (Plaintiff); As to: PRINGREE F TIMOTHY (Defendant); a California Corporation LOST & FOUND, INC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: JAMES WHELAN (Plaintiff); As to: PRINGREE F TIMOTHY (Defendant); a California Corporation LOST & FOUND, INC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC04072    Hearing Date: February 24, 2021    Dept: 25


Case Number: 19STLC06935    Hearing Date: February 24, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Wed., February 24, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Worldwide ATM, Inc. v. Ghalab, et al. COMPL. FILED: 07-26-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC06935 DISC. C/O: 06-12-21

NOTICE: OK DISC. MOT. C/O: 06-27-21

TRIAL DATE: 07-12-21

PROCEEDINGS: (1 & 2) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(3) MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, ADMITTED, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Worldwide ATM, Inc.

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300; 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Because Plaintiff Worldwide ATM, Inc.’s discovery requests exceed what is permitted in limited jurisdiction courts, Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted are 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: None filed as of February 22, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of February 22, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On July 26, 2019, Plaintiff Worldwide ATM, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and trespass to chattels against Defendants Family Market, Othman M. Ghalab (“Ghalab”), and Abd Salam. Defendant Ghalab filed an Answer on October 28, 2019.

On July 22, 2020, Defendant Ghalab filed a substitution of attorney form indicating she was proceeding as a self-represented litigant.

On August 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions; (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Sanctions; and (3) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted and Request for Sanctions, (collectively, the “Motions”). No oppositions were filed.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Request for Production & Interrogatories

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

B. Requests for Admission

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).) “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response…(a) [that party] waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Id. at subd. (b).) A motion dealing with the failure to respond, rather than with inadequate responses, does not require the requesting party to meet and confer with the responding party. (Deymer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, fn. 4 [disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973]. There is no time limit within which a motion to have matters deemed admitted must be made. (Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1585.)

C. Discussion

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel served Defendant Ghalab’s former counsel with Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Admission, Set One, on May 26, 2020 via email. (Motions, Wright Decl., ¶ 2, Exhs. A.) Having reviewed the propounded discovery, the Court finds it exceeds what is permitted in limited civil actions. Specifically, Code of Civil Procedure section 94 provides that a propounding party may serve any combination of 35 interrogatories, demands to produce documents, and requests for admission. (Code Civ. Proc., subd. (a)(1)-(3).) Here, Plaintiff propounded 32 interrogatories, 18 requests for production, and 19 requests for admission. (Motions, Wright Decl., ¶ 2, Exhs. A.) Because Plaintiff has not complied with the discovery limits imposed by Section 94, the Motions are DENIED.

  1. Conclusion & Order

Because Plaintiff Worldwide ATM, Inc.’s discovery requests exceed what is permitted in limited jurisdiction courts, Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted are DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC04072    Hearing Date: November 14, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY

(Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct Rule 3-310(C)(1))

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff James Whelan’s Motion for Order Disqualifying Kelly Koerner, Esq. as Counsel for Defendants Lost & Found, Inc. and Timothy Pingree is GRANTED.

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for breach of oral loan agreement, common counts.

RELIEF REQUESTED: Plaintiff moves to disqualify defense counsel, Kelly Koerner, on the grounds that she previously represented him in the same subject matter as this lawsuit. Specifically, in Plaintiff’s attempt to recover funds from Lost & Found, Inc. and its principal, Timothy F. Pingree. An impermissible conflict exists with respect to Koerner’s representation of Defendants.

OPPOSITION: None filed as of November 8, 2019.

ANALYSIS:

On April 25, 2019, Plaintiff James Whelan (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of oral contract and common counts against Defendants Lost & Found, Inc. and its principal, Timothy F. Pingree. (“Defendants”). Defendants are represented by Kelly Koerner, Esq. (“Koerner” or “defense counsel”). Plaintiff filed the instant motion to disqualify Koerner as Defendants’ attorney on July 25, 2019. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(5), one of the court’s powers is to control the conduct of its ministerial officers and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it in furtherance of justice. That power includes disqualifying an attorney.

“The issue of disqualification ‘ultimately involves a conflict between the clients’ right to counsel of their choice and the need to maintain ethical standards of professional responsibility. The paramount concern, though, must be the preservation of public trust in the scrupulous administration of justice and the integrity of the bar. The recognized and important right to counsel of one's choosing must yield to considerations of ethics that run to the very integrity of our judicial process.’ [Citations.]” (Metro-Goldwyn Mayer v. Tracinda Corp. (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1832, 1838.)

Whether an attorney should be disqualified is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. (Henriksen v. Great American Savings & Loan (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 109, 113.) Different standards have evolved for conflicts arising out of the simultaneous representation of clients with potentially adverse interests versus the successive representation of clients with adverse interests.

Where the potential conflict is one that arises from the successive representation of clients with potentially adverse interests, the courts have recognized that the chief fiduciary value jeopardized is that of client confidentiality. Thus, where a former client seeks to have a previous attorney disqualified from serving as counsel to a successive client in litigation adverse to the interests of the first client, the governing test requires that the client demonstrate a “substantial relationship” between the subjects of the antecedent and current representations.

(Flatt v. Superior Court (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275, 283; see Metro-Goldwyn Mayer, supra, at 1839.)

The “substantial relationship” test mediates between two interests that are in tension in such a context—the freedom of the subsequent client to counsel of choice, on the one hand, and the interest of the former client in ensuring the permanent confidentiality of matters disclosed to the attorney in the course of the prior representation, on the other. Where the requisite substantial relationship between the subjects of the prior and the current representations can be demonstrated, access to confidential information by the attorney in the course of the first representation (relevant, by definition, to the second representation) is presumed and disqualification of the attorney's representation of the second client is mandatory; indeed, the disqualification extends vicariously to the entire firm.

(Flatt v. Superior Court, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 283-284.)

Discussion

This action pertains to monies Plaintiff allegedly loaned to Defendants in the amount of $24,000.00, and which they have failed to repay as agreed. (Compl., ¶¶6-9.) Plaintiff contends that defense counsel should be disqualified from representing Defendants in this action because she previously represented him on the same matter. Specifically, in January 2019, Whelan contacted Kroener to negotiate a resolution of the dispute with Defendants regarding repayment. (Motion, Whelan Decl., ¶¶2-3.) Kroener agreed to represent Plaintiff in the negotiations and he provided confidential information to her as a result. (Id. at ¶¶4-5.) This confidential information included how he came to loan Defendants money and the terms and conditions upon which Plaintiff was willing to settle. (Ibid.) On March 12, 2016, Kroener emailed Plaintiff regarding a potential resolution to the dispute and that she was attempting to get Defendants’ agreement. (Id. at ¶6 and Exhs. A-C.)

Upon the filing of this action by Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s counsel Richard Weiss, Esq. pointed out the conflict of interest in Kroener’s representation and asked that she recuse herself. (Motion, Weiss Decl., ¶1 and Exh. A.) Although Kroener disavowed having any confidential information, she agreed to recuse herself to avoid exacerbating the issue. (Ibid.) Despite this representation, Kroener filed an Answer on behalf of Defendant Pingree and an Answer and Amended Answer on behalf of Lost & Found, Inc.

Despite any contention by Kroener that she did not obtain confidential information, she has not bothered to file an opposition to this motion. Nor is there anything to overcome the presumption that such confidential information was obtained in Kroener’s earlier representation of Plaintiff given the complete overlap of issues.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify is GRANTED.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where LOST & FOUND INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DBA LOST & FOUND is a litigant