This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/24/2021 at 02:38:22 (UTC).

SCHORR LAW VS E. ROBERT SORACCO

Case Summary

On 07/13/2018 SCHORR LAW filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against E ROBERT SORACCO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******9449

  • Filing Date:

    07/13/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

SCHORR LAW

SCHORR LAW A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Cross Plaintiff and Defendant

SORACCO E. ROBERT

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorney

GOLDSTEIN STEPHANIE CHING-YEE

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Order Terminating Sanctions)

10/28/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Order Terminating Sanctions)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

10/28/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Notice (name extension) - Notice PLAINTIFF SCHORR LAW, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS NOTICE OF HEARING DATE FOR MOTION FOR ORDER TERMINATING SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT E. ROBERT SORACCO

10/14/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice PLAINTIFF SCHORR LAW, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS NOTICE OF HEARING DATE FOR MOTION FOR ORDER TERMINATING SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT E. ROBERT SORACCO

Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial;)

6/29/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial;)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of E. Robert Soracco in Reference to Show Cause Why the Court Should Vacate its Prior Order Stricking Defendant's Answer

9/27/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of E. Robert Soracco in Reference to Show Cause Why the Court Should Vacate its Prior Order Stricking Defendant's Answer

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default Judgment or Dismissa...) of 09/28/2021

9/28/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default Judgment or Dismissa...) of 09/28/2021

Minute Order - Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default Judgment or Dismissa...)

9/28/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default Judgment or Dismissa...)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order;) of 08/31/2021

8/31/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order;) of 08/31/2021

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order;)

8/31/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order;)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF ZACHARY D. SCHORR RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT VACATE ITS PRIOR ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANTS ANSWER

9/20/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF ZACHARY D. SCHORR RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT VACATE ITS PRIOR ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANTS ANSWER

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions)

7/20/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions) of 07/20/2021

7/20/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions) of 07/20/2021

Answer - Answer

11/28/2018: Answer - Answer

Notice (name extension) - Notice OF RULING RE PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT SCHORR LAW, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, ADMITTED AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

9/4/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice OF RULING RE PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT SCHORR LAW, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, ADMITTED AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims - Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

11/13/2020: Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims - Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Motion for Terminating Sanctions

2/11/2021: Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE THE JULY 20, 2021 HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANTS MOTION FO

3/25/2021: Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE THE JULY 20, 2021 HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANTS MOTION FO

Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application Ruling

3/26/2021: Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application Ruling

51 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/20/2022
  • Hearing01/20/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 01/20/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Schorr Law a Professional corporation, a California Corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Order Terminating Sanctions)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Order Terminating Sanctions scheduled for 10/28/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 10/28/2021; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2021
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 12/02/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Vacated on 10/28/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against Defendant/Cross-Complainant: Filed By: Schorr Law (Plaintiff); Result: Denied; Result Date: 10/28/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2021
  • DocketNotice PLAINTIFF SCHORR LAW, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS NOTICE OF HEARING DATE FOR MOTION FOR ORDER TERMINATING SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT E. ROBERT SORACCO; Filed by: Schorr Law a Professional corporation, a California Corporation (Plaintiff); As to: E. Robert Soracco (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 12/02/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Order Terminating Sanctions scheduled for 10/28/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
94 More Docket Entries
  • 07/20/2018
  • DocketUpdated -- Summons - corrected: Exact Name changed from corrected to Summons - corrected

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Filed by:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2018
  • DocketUpdated -- corrected: Exact Name: corrected

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Schorr Law (Plaintiff); As to: E. Robert Soracco (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Schorr Law (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 01/10/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 07/16/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 18STLC09449 Hearing Date: October 28, 2021 Dept: 26

Schorr Law, APC v. Soracco,\r\net al. 18STLC09449

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

(CCP\r\n§ 2023.010)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Schorr Law, APC’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions\r\nis DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Schorr Law (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action\r\nagainst its former client, Defendant E. Robert Soracco (“Defendant”), on July\r\n13, 2018, for failure to pay attorney’s fees for the legal services it\r\nprovided. Defendant filed a Cross-Complaint on November 28, 2018 for breach of\r\nthe retainer agreement, among other claims. On January 29, 2019, the court sustained Plaintiff’s demurrer to the\r\nCross-Complaint without leave to amend.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On August 19, 2020,\r\nthe Court granted Plaintiff’s\r\nmotion to compel Defendant’s appearance at deposition and for an award of\r\nmonetary sanctions. (Minute Order, 08/19/20.) Plaintiff filed the instant Motion\r\nfor Terminating Sanctions on February\r\n11, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The action\r\ncame for trial on June 29, 2021. Upon Defendant’s failure to appear, the Court\r\ntook the trial off calendar and struck Defendant’s Answer. (Minute Order,\r\n06/29/21.) The Court instructed Plaintiff to proceed with default and\r\ndefault judgment and set an Order to Show Cause Re Entry of Default Judgment or\r\nDismissal for September 28, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On September 28, 2021, the Court vacated its earlier ruling\r\nstriking Defendant’s Answer and placed the instant Motion for Terminating\r\nSanctions back on calendar. (Minute Order, 09/28/21.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts\r\nhave discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence or monetary sanctions.\r\n(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subds. (d), (g); R.S. Creative, Inc. v.\r\nCreative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) The court should\r\nlook to the totality of the circumstances in determining whether terminating\r\nsanctions are appropriate. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225,\r\n1246.) Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful\r\ndiscovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less\r\nsevere sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules. (Van\r\nSickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) “[A] penalty as\r\nsevere as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with\r\ndiscovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad\r\nfaith.” (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.) “The court\r\nmay impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(1) An\r\norder striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party\r\nengaging in the misuse of the discovery process.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(2) An\r\norder staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is\r\nobeyed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(3) An\r\norder dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(4) An\r\norder rendering a judgment by default against that party.”

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion compelling Defendant’s\r\nappearance at deposition and awarded monetary sanctions against Defendant on\r\nAugust 19, 2021. (Minute Order, 08/19/21.) Plaintiff was ordered to give\r\nnotice. (Ibid.) Defendant failed to appear when Plaintiff re-noticed the\r\ndeposition for November 23, 2021. (Motion, Goldstein Decl., ¶¶14-16 and Exhs.\r\nB-D.) To date, Defendant has not complied with the Court’s orders nor paid the\r\nmonetary sanctions as required. (Id. at ¶16.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated terminating\r\nsanctions are warranted for Defendant’s non-compliance. Plaintiff has not\r\ndemonstrated that it gave notice of the Court’s August 19, 2021 to Defendant,\r\nas ordered. No notice of ruling and proof of service was filed with the Court,\r\nattached to the instant Motion, nor attested to in the supporting declaration\r\nof Plaintiff’s counsel. Without notice of the order, the Court cannot find that\r\nDefendant’s failure to comply was willful as required for an imposition of\r\nterminating sanctions.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Nor does Defendant’s other purported misconduct—filing what\r\nPlaintiff deemed to be frivolous pleadings and motions, and failing to respond\r\nto requests for admission—create a basis for terminating discovery sanctions.\r\nAs stated above, the harshness of this penalty is reserved for conduct that\r\namounts to a willful violation of a court discovery order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Conclusion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Schorr Law, APC’s Motion for Terminating is\r\nDENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Court clerk to give notice.

'

Case Number: 18STLC09449    Hearing Date: August 19, 2020    Dept: 26

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION; TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2025.420, 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

PLAINTIFF SCHORR LAW, APC’S MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS GRANTED. DEFENDANT E. ROBERT SORACCO IS ORDERED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION AT A DATE AND TIME TO BE NOTICED BY PLAINTIFF WITHIN THE NEXT 20 DAYS. DEFENDANT IS FURTHER ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $945.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Schorr Law (“Plaintiff”), a law firm, initiated this action against its former client, Defendant E. Robert Soracco (“Defendant”), on July 13, 2018 for failure to pay attorney’s fees for the legal services provided. Defendant then filed a Cross-Complaint on November 28, 2018 for breach of the retainer agreement, among other claims. On January 29, 2019, the court sustained Plaintiff’s demurrer to the Cross-Complaint without leave to amend. On July 24, 2019, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Complaint. On November 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Deposition, or in the alternative, for Terminating Sanctions; and Request for Monetary Sanctions. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Motion to Compel Deposition and Request for Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, section (a) states in relevant part:

If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) The motion must also “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice” and “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (b)(1), (2).) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

A court shall impose monetary sanctions if the motion to compel is granted unless the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or other circumstances would make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

Plaintiff presents evidence that Defendant failed to appear for his properly noticed deposition on November 1, 2019. (Motion, Schorr Decl., ¶¶3-8 and Exhs. A-B.) In fact, Defendant refused to appear until after January 12, 2020 due to health issues. (Id. at ¶8 and Exh. B.) Defendant, however, did not offer any details or proof regarding these health issues. (Ibid.) Following Defendant’s failure to appear, Plaintiff called Defendant on November 15, 2019 and left a voicemail seeking alternative deposition dates. (Id. at ¶9.) This satisfies the statute’s meet and confer requirement. Defendant, however, did not respond to reschedule the deposition nor has he filed an opposition to the instant Motion to Compel Deposition. (Ibid.)

Sanctions are warranted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 2023.030, subdivision (d) and section 2025.450, subdivision (g)(1,) and have been properly noticed. However, the Court finds the amount sought is excessive. Using a lodestar calculation, sanctions are awarded against Defendant in the reduced amount of $945.00 based on three hours of attorney time billed at $295.00 per hour and $60.00 for the filing fee. (Id. at ¶¶15, 17.)

Based on the Defendant’s failure to appear for the properly noticed deposition and continuing lack of cooperation in rescheduling, the Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. DEFENDANT IS ORDERED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION AT A DATE AND TIME TO BE NOTICED BY PLAINTIFF WITHIN THE NEXT 20 DAYS. SANCTIONS OF $945.00 ARE TO BE PAID TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

In light of the order compelling Defendant’s deposition, the alternative request for terminating sanctions is denied. The Court further notes that terminating sanctions are only appropriate when a party willfully disobeys a discovery order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subds. (d), (g); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) Here, Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant failed to comply with any order to produce discovery.

Conclusion

PLAINTIFF SCHORR LAW, APC’S MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS GRANTED. DEFENDANT E. ROBERT SORACCO IS ORDERED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION AT A DATE AND TIME TO BE NOTICED BY PLAINTIFF WITHIN THE NEXT 20 DAYS. DEFENDANT IS FURTHER ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $945.00 TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC09449    Hearing Date: December 10, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTION TO DEEM THE TRUTH OF MATTERS IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT AS ADMITTED AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Schorr Law, APC’s Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admissions to Defendant as Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

Plaintiff Schorr Law (“Plaintiff”), a law firm, initiated this action against its former client, Defendant E. Robert Soracco (“Defendant”), on July 13, 2018 for failure to pay attorney’s fees for the legal services provided. Defendant then filed a Cross-Complaint on November 28, 2018 for breach of the retainer agreement, among other claims. On January 29, 2019, the court sustained Plaintiff’s demurrer to the Cross-Complaint without leave to amend.

On June 13, 2019, Plaintiff served Requests for Admissions, Set One, on Defendant E. Robert Sorraco (“Defendant”). (Marquez Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) To date, Plaintiff has not received any discovery responses to the propounded discovery requests from Defendant. (Id. at ¶ 6.) As a result, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deem the Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admissions to Defendant as Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions (the “Motion”) on October 24, 2019.

II. Analysis & Order

 

Defendant has failed to respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions. Accordingly, the unopposed Motion is GRANTED. Pursuant to CCP § 2033.280, the truth of the matters specified in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions to Defendant is hereby deemed admitted.

As the Motion has been granted, monetary sanctions are mandatory under CCP § 2033.280(c). Given the simplicity of the Motion and the lack of opposition and reply, the Court awards Plaintiff $560 ($250/hr. x 2 hrs., plus $60 filing fee) in reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as monetary sanctions against Defendant. Sanctions are to be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of Plaintiff serving a notice of this Order on Defendant.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where SCHORR LAW A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer GOLDSTEIN STEPHANIE CHING-YEE