This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/27/2021 at 06:15:42 (UTC).

MICHAEL GREENSTONE VS FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 10/22/2020 MICHAEL GREENSTONE filed an Other - Arbitration lawsuit against FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3476

  • Filing Date:

    10/22/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other - Arbitration

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Petitioner

GREENSTONE MICHAEL

Respondents

UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC.

FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Other Attorneys

MAHONEY PATRICK

 

Court Documents

Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt - Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt

2/24/2021: Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt - Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

2/25/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Patrick Mahoney re: Respondents Non-Opposition to Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

12/8/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Patrick Mahoney re: Respondents Non-Opposition to Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

11/10/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

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

11/10/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

10/22/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award - Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

10/22/2020: Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award - Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

10/22/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

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

10/22/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

10/22/2020: Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/25/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2021
  • DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 02/25/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 02/25/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award: Filed By: Michael Greenstone (Petitioner); Result: Granted; Result Date: 02/25/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2021
  • DocketNotice and Acknowledgment of Receipt; Filed by: Michael Greenstone (Petitioner); As to: UBS Financial Services, Inc. (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2021
  • DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 26 - Hon. Elaine Lueffective 01/04/2021; Reason: Transfer for Reassignment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • DocketCase reassigned to Spring Street Courthouse in Department 26 - Hon. Serena R. Murillo; Reason: Other

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- 02/25/2021 Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award: Location changed from Department 26 to Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- 02/25/2021 Hearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award: Location changed from Department 26 to Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2020
  • DocketDeclaration of Patrick Mahoney re: Respondents Non-Opposition to Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award; Filed by: Michael Greenstone (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2020
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: Michael Greenstone (Petitioner); As to: UBS Financial Services, Inc. (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Michael Greenstone (Petitioner); As to: Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (Respondent); Service Date: 10/23/2020; Service Cost: 40.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2020
  • DocketPetition to Confirm Arbitration Award; Filed by: Michael Greenstone (Petitioner); As to: Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (Respondent); UBS Financial Services, Inc. (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Michael Greenstone (Petitioner); As to: Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (Respondent); UBS Financial Services, Inc. (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2020
  • DocketNotice of Hearing on Petition; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2020
  • DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award scheduled for 02/25/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCP03476    Hearing Date: February 25, 2021    Dept: 26


Case Number: 20STLC00405    Hearing Date: February 25, 2021    Dept: 26

Hair v. Able Auto Adjustors, Inc., et al.

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Cassandra Hair’s Motion for Order Compelling Defendant’s Further Responses to Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions is DEEMED MOOT AS TO THE FURTHER RESPONSES AND GRANTED AS TO THE REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS. DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $3,102.50 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

On January 15, 2020, Plaintiff Cassandra Hair (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Able Auto Adjustors, Inc. (“Defendant”) for violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and negligence.

On September 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order Compelling Defendant’s Further Responses to Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions. Defendant filed an opposition on February 10, 2021 and Plaintiff replied on February 18, 2021.

Discussion

Notice of the motion to compel further must be given “within 45 days of service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing,” otherwise, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).) Here, the parties mutually agreed to extend the time to respond to September 4, 2020. (Motion, Dahl Decl., Exh. 21.)

Also, the motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).) Plaintiff filed a declaration demonstrating that the parties engaged in a significant meet and confer effort prior to the filing of this Motion. (Motion, Rocco Decl., 5-18 and Exhs. 7-19.) No supplemental responses were served prior to the filing of the Motion. (Id. at ¶19.) The meet and confer requirement, therefore, is satisfied.

Finally, Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345 requires all motions or responses involving further discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a).) Alternatively, “the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(3).) The Motion is accompanied by a separate statement. (Separate Statement, filed 3/15/19.)

The parties agree that the substance of the Motion is moot, Defendant having served supplemental responses on February 4, 2021 and the only issue that remains is sanctions. The Court finds that Defendant’s conduct resulted in the need for Plaintiff to bring the instant Motion. Plaintiff extended the deadline for code-compliant responses three times: to July 22, 2020, August 21, 2020 and August 28, 2020. (Motion, Dahl Decl., ¶¶6, 12, 16; Rocco Decl., Exh. 17.) Defendant’s opposition fails to explain why the August 21, 2020 deadline passed without service of supplemental responses. Defendant also failed to produce responses by the next deadline on August 28, 2020. The opposition argument that Defendant had concerns about the production of a single document was not raised until the August 28, 2020 deadline to respond. (Opp., Welde Decl., ¶3i.) This is simply too dilatory for the Court to find in good faith and demonstrates that Defendant was not committed to meeting the August 28, 2020 deadline, even after multiple prior extensions.

Plaintiff’s attorneys spent a combined 9.7 hours with respect to this Motion, . Attorney Dahl spent 7.7 hours billed at $325.00 per hour and Attorney Rocco spent 2.0 hours billed at $300.00 per hour. (Motion, Dahl Decl., ¶21; Rocco Decl., ¶21.) Plaintiff additionally incurred Motion costs of $100.00. (Motion, Dahl Decl., ¶21.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is granted in the amount of $3,102.50 in attorney fees and $100.00 in costs. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2023.030, 2031.310.)

Conclusion

Plaintiff Cassandra Hair’s Motion for Order Compelling Defendant’s Further Responses to Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions is DEEMED MOOT AS TO THE FURTHER RESPONSES AND GRANTED AS TO THE REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS. DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $3,102.50 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice. 

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where UBS Financial Services Inc. is a litigant