This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/07/2019 at 14:26:32 (UTC).

STEPHANIE SHIN VS JEWISH EDUCATIONAL MOVEMENT, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION , ET AL.

Case Summary

On 01/10/2019 a Property - Wrongful Eviction case was filed by STEPHANIE SHIN against JEWISH EDUCATIONAL MOVEMENT, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0303

  • Filing Date:

    01/10/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Wrongful Eviction

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

SHIN STEPHANIE

Defendants

JEWISH EDUCATIONAL MOVEMENT A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

ILLULIAN HERTZEL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

FIGUEROA IRVING ERNESTO

Defendant Attorney

PARTIYELI JACOB O.

 

Court Documents

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Vacate Relief for waiver of objections; ...) of 12/04/2019

12/4/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Vacate Relief for waiver of objections; ...) of 12/04/2019

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Vacate Relief for waiver of objections; ...)

12/4/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Vacate Relief for waiver of objections; ...)

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT[S MOTION FOR RELIEF OF WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS AND RELIEF FROM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS DEEMED ADMITTE

11/19/2019: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT[S MOTION FOR RELIEF OF WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS AND RELIEF FROM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS DEEMED ADMITTE

Reply (name extension) - Reply PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS FORM INTERROGATORIES

10/22/2019: Reply (name extension) - Reply PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS FORM INTERROGATORIES

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF ROGI SANCHEZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS REPLY (MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES)

10/22/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF ROGI SANCHEZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS REPLY (MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF ROGI SANCHEZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS REPLY (MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES)

10/22/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF ROGI SANCHEZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS REPLY (MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES)

Reply (name extension) - Reply PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

10/22/2019: Reply (name extension) - Reply PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: Notice of Motion and Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections

10/24/2019: Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: Notice of Motion and Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted)

8/22/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration DECLARATION OF ROGI SANCHEZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS REPLY

8/15/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration DECLARATION OF ROGI SANCHEZ IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS REPLY

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Defendants Opposition to Deem Plaintiff's Request for Admissions Admitted and Sanctions

8/12/2019: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Defendants Opposition to Deem Plaintiff's Request for Admissions Admitted and Sanctions

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Defendants Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories Set One

8/12/2019: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Defendants Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories Set One

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Defendants Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents Set One

8/12/2019: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Defendants Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents Set One

Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

7/10/2019: Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

Answer - Answer

5/15/2019: Answer - Answer

Answer - Answer

4/23/2019: Answer - Answer

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

1/10/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Summons - Summons on Complaint

1/24/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

27 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/13/2022
  • Hearing01/13/2022 at 10:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2020
  • Hearing07/09/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2019
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Vacate Relief for waiver of objections; ...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion to Vacate Relief for waiver of objections; ...) of 12/04/2019; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2019
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Vacate Relief for waiver of objections scheduled for 12/04/2019 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 updated: Result Date to 12/04/2019; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2019
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Vacate Relief from Waiver of Objections scheduled for 12/04/2019 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 updated: Result Date to 12/04/2019; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2019
  • DocketOpposition PLAINTIFF?S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT?[S MOTION FOR RELIEF OF WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS AND RELIEF FROM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS DEEMED ADMITTE; Filed by: STEPHANIE SHIN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2019
  • DocketDeclaration OF KAIVAN HAROUNI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF?S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT?S MOTION FOR RELIEF OF WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS AND RELIEF FROM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS DEEMED ADMITTED; Filed by: STEPHANIE SHIN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2019
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2019
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 10/29/2019 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 updated: Result Date to 10/29/2019; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
46 More Docket Entries
  • 01/24/2019
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/09/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 01/13/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: STEPHANIE SHIN (Plaintiff); As to: JEWISH EDUCATIONAL MOVEMENT, a California Corporation (Defendant); HERTZEL ILLULIAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: STEPHANIE SHIN (Plaintiff); As to: JEWISH EDUCATIONAL MOVEMENT, a California Corporation (Defendant); HERTZEL ILLULIAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2019
  • DocketRequest to Waive Additional Court Fees (Superior Court); Filed by: STEPHANIE SHIN (Plaintiff); As to: JEWISH EDUCATIONAL MOVEMENT, a California Corporation (Defendant); HERTZEL ILLULIAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2019
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: STEPHANIE SHIN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC00303    Hearing Date: March 09, 2020    Dept: 26

Shin v. Jewish Educational Movement, et al.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(CCP § 437C)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Jewish Educational Movement and Hertzel Illulian’s Motion for Summary Judgment is CONTINUED TO JUNE 8, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. ANY OPPOSITION OR REPLY PAPERS ARE TO BE FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 437C.

ANALYSIS:

On January 10, 2019, Plaintiff Stephanie Shin (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for wrongful eviction and related claims against Defendants Jewish Educational Movement (“Defendant JEM”) and Hertzel Illulian (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants filed and served the instant Motion for Summary Judgment on February 18, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

The Motion for Summary Judgment was not filed or served with sufficient notice. Notice of a motion for summary judgment “shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before the time appointed for hearing.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b).) Here, the Motion was served on February 18, 2020 by electronic mail. As this was only 20 days before the hearing date, the Motion does not satisfy the statutory requirements for notice. Indeed, it does not even satisfy the statutory notice period for other types of motions under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005. Nor does the Court have discretion to shorten the notice period on a motion for summary judgment. (Urshan v. Musicians' Credit Union (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 758, 764.)

Therefore, Defendants Jewish Educational Movement and Hertzel Illulian’s Motion for Summary Judgment is CONTINUED TO JUNE 8, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. ANY OPPOSITION OR REPLY PAPERS ARE TO BE FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 437C.

Moving party to give notice within five (5) days and concurrently file proof of service of the same.

Case Number: 19STLC00303    Hearing Date: December 04, 2019    Dept: 94

Shin v. Jewish Educational Movement, et al

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Jewish Education Movement’s Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections is DENIED.

 

ANALYSIS:

On January 10, 2019, Plaintiff Stephanie Shin (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for wrongful eviction and related claims against Defendants Jewish Educational Movement (“Defendant JEM”) and Hertzel Illulian (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendant filed the instant motion for relief from waiver of objections on October 24, 2019, and Plaintiff opposed on November 19, 2019.

CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, and 2033.280 state that an untimely response results in waiver of objections. However, the sections also state that the Court may relieve the responding party from this waiver if two conditions are satisfied: (1) the party has subsequently served responses in substantial compliance with the relevant code sections, and (2) the party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (CCP § 2031.300(a).)

Defendant’s counsel provides his declaration stating that Plaintiff’s counsel request for consent from Defendant to reclassify the instant case from limited to unlimited jurisdiction, which Defendant granted. (Ekekeulu Decl., ¶ 3.) Based on this reclassification, he believed that meant the case was no longer subject to the discovery rules under CCP § 2030.260 for unlawful detainer, but now under the general discovery rules. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Defendant has since responded to the discovery. (Id. at ¶ 9.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the responses are not substantially compliant, and that Defendant never agreed to reclassify the case. Furthermore, Defendant’s responses were served on July 22, 2019, which is well past the 30-day deadline Defendant’s counsel asserts he was mistaken about. The discovery requests were served on Defendant on June 5, 2019 and thus the responses were due by July 10, 2019. (Harouni Decl., ¶ 4.) Accordingly, even if the discovery responses are substantially code compliant, Defendant has not provided sufficient evidence that its failure to serve timely responses was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect because the mistake as to the statutory timing does not excuse the July 22, 2019 response date.

The motion is denied.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC00303    Hearing Date: October 29, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO FORM AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2031.300)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Stephanie Shin’s Motions to Compel Defendant’s Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, and for Monetary Sanctions are DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On June 5, 2019, Plaintiff Stephanie Shin (“Plaintiff”) served Form and Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on Defendant Jewish Educational Movement (“JEM”). (Figueroa Decls. ¶ 2, Exhs. As.) Since service of these discovery requests were made by mail, JEM had 30 days under CCP §§ 2030.260(a) and 2031.260(a), plus five additional calendar days under CCP § 1013(a) to respond. JEM, therefore, had until July 12, 2019 to respond to the discovery requests. But JEM did not respond to Plaintiff until July 22. (Oppos., Exhs, As.) Two days before Defendant’s discovery responses were due, Plaintiff has filed the instant Motions to Compel JEM’s Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, and for Monetary Sanctions (collectively, the “Motions”). JEM opposed the Motions on August 12, and Plaintiff replied on October 22.

II. Discussion

In opposition, JEM contends that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer with it before filing these Motions. However, this is not required. “Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses . . . does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a ‘meet and confer’ requirement. [Citations.]” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.)

Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s request to compel JEM to respond to her discovery requests is now moot given that Defendant had served his verified discovery responses. The only remaining issue now is whether sanctions should be imposed.

CCP §§ 2030.290(a) and 2031.300(a) mandate the Court to impose sanctions on the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

The Court also notes Plaintiff prematurely brought these Motions on July 10 instead of July 13, after the deadline for JEM to respond had passed. Thus, the Motions are unjustified and should not have been filed then. Plaintiff is an unsuccessful party because she brought these Motions prematurely. On the other hand, JEM’s responses were untimely served, so it is an unsuccessful opposing party—it would have been a successful opposing party had it timely responded to the discovery requests. The Court also finds that given the parties’ errors, it would be unjust to impose monetary sanctions.

III. Conclusion & Order

Given that JEM has already responded to the discovery requests, the Motions are DENIED AS MOOT as to the request to compel Defendant’s discovery responses and DENIED as to the request for sanctions.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.