This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/17/2021 at 18:09:50 (UTC).

ANNE GREENE ET AL VS ALBERTO DANIEL DRIZ ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/08/2016 ANNE GREENE filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ALBERTO DANIEL DRIZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DAVID J. COWAN, SUSAN BRYANT-DEASON, MONICA BACHNER, VICTOR E. CHVEZ and SAMANTHA JESSNER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3270

  • Filing Date:

    12/08/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DAVID J. COWAN

SUSAN BRYANT-DEASON

MONICA BACHNER

VICTOR E. CHVEZ

SAMANTHA JESSNER

 

Party Details

Cross Defendants, Plaintiffs and Petitioners

GREENE ANNE

GREENE MATTHEW

FINDEL JEREMY

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

DRIZ MAURICE

TORBATI AARON JOSEPH

DRIZ SHAWN

DRIZ ALBERTO DANIEL

JOELSON WILLIAM AUBREY

JOELSON WILLIAM

Defendant, Cross Plaintiff and Respondent

TORBATI AARON JOSEPH

Not Classified By Court

SURACI ROBERT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

DORDICK GARY A. ESQ.

DORDICK GARY ALAN

FRIEDMAN TODD MICHAEL ESQ.

KRISTENSEN JOHN PETER ESQ.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

KLEVENS JOEL N.

KLEVENS JOEL N. ESQ.

COSTELL JEFFREY LEE ESQ.

HALL MARIA ELIZABETH

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

1/8/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

2/4/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

2/16/2021: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)

2/24/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

2/24/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 02/24/2021

2/24/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 02/24/2021

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER) OF 02/24/2021

2/24/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER) OF 02/24/2021

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

2/26/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

RETURNED MAIL

3/8/2021: RETURNED MAIL

RETURNED MAIL

3/8/2021: RETURNED MAIL

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING - OTHER STATUS CONFERENCE)

3/10/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING - OTHER STATUS CONFERENCE)

Proof of Service by Mail

3/15/2021: Proof of Service by Mail

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION - OTHER MOTIONS IN...)

3/18/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION - OTHER MOTIONS IN...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE RE: JURY INSTRUCTIONS, SPECIAL VERD...)

3/24/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE RE: JURY INSTRUCTIONS, SPECIAL VERD...)

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

3/24/2021: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF RULING RE FSC

3/24/2021: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF RULING RE FSC

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SANCTIONS FOR DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO ...)

3/29/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SANCTIONS FOR DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO ...)

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

3/29/2021: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

453 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/03/2022
  • Hearing01/03/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 8 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2021
  • Hearing10/06/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department 8 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 8, Susan Bryant-Deason, Presiding; Jury Trial - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2021
  • DocketSpecial Verdict (Form For Matthew Greene)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2021
  • DocketSpecial Verdict (Form For Jeremy Findel)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2021
  • DocketJury Instructions (REFUSED/WITHDRAWN)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Jury Trial) of 07/29/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2021
  • DocketSpecial Verdict (Form For Anne Greene)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2021
  • DocketJury Instructions

    Read MoreRead Less
682 More Docket Entries
  • 12/19/2016
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2016
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2016
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2016
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Anne Greene (Plaintiff); Matthew Greene (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2016
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2016
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Jeremy Findel (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2016
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2016
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2016
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2015
  • DocketPartial Dismissal (with Prejudice); Filed by Anne Greene (Plaintiff); Matthew Greene (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC643270    Hearing Date: April 9, 2021    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

ANNE GREENE and MATTHEW GREENE,

vs.

ALBERTO DANIEL DRIZ, et al.

Case No.: BC643270

Hearing Date: April 9, 2021

Plaintiff Matthew Greene’s unopposed motion for an order enforcing the Court’s October 1, 2019 Order against Defendant is granted. Defendant is ordered to produce supplemental responses within 10 days.

Plaintiff’s unopposed request for issue and/or evidentiary sanctions against Defendant is denied.

Plaintiff’s unopposed request for monetary sanctions against Defendant is denied.

Plaintiff Matthew Greene (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order enforcing the Court’s October 1, 2019 Order (“Order”) compelling Defendant William Joelson (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 33 and 34 and Requests for Admission Nos. 39, 41, and 42, subject to a protective order, which was executed on March 4, 2020. In the alternative, Plaintiff moves for an order imposing issue or evidentiary sanctions against Defendant. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.) Specifically, Plaintiff requests the Court impose issue sanctions against Defendant deeming Requests for Admission Nos. 39, 41, and 42 admitted against Defendant and evidentiary sanctions prohibiting Defendant from admitting any evidence to contradict the admission of a cocaine habit as of April 17, 2015. (Notice of Motion, pgs. 2-3.) While not indicated in the Notice of Motion, Plaintiff also requests the Court order monetary sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $3,400 for Defendant’s violation of the Court’s orders pursuant to C.C.P. §177.5. (Motion, pg. 12.)

Background

On October 1, 2019, the Court issued its Order denying Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to discovery requests except as to Special Interrogatories Nos. 33 and 34 and Requests for Admission Nos. 39, 41, and 42 (all subject to a protective order), which did not relate to Defendant’s financial condition. In light of the Court’s rulings on the discovery motions, Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions were denied and Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions were granted in a reduced amount. Plaintiff filed the instant motion on August 24, 2020 after Defendant failed to provide supplemental responses to the discovery requests as ordered. The Court notes the motion’s caption incorrectly refers to Plaintiff Anne Greene (“Anne”) as the moving party; however, based on the Notice of Motion and Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the motion is properly brought by Plaintiff, the movant on the underlying discovery motions subject to the Order. On March 4, 2020, the Court granted the motion of Lewis B. Adelson, Defendant’s then-counsel (“Adelson”), to be relieved as counsel. As of the hearing date on the motion, Defendant has not filed an opposition.

Motion to Enforce Discovery Order

Plaintiff is entitled to an order enforcing the Order. Plaintiff submitted evidence Defendant has failed to provide any timely responses as ordered. (Decl. of Bulone ¶3.) On March 4, 2020, the parties executed a protective order, and on that date, Adelson represented he had drafted the supplemental discovery responses on behalf of Defendant pursuant to the Court’s Order and that he would timely serve the responses himself in accordance with the protective order, which the parties understood to be two weeks from March 4, 2020. (Decl. of Bulone ¶8.) Adelson and Plaintiff’s counsel stipulated to and signed the Protective Order on March 4, 2020. (Decl. of Bulone ¶9.) [1]

Based on the foregoing, Defendant is ordered to produce supplemental responses within 10 days.

Issue and Evidentiary Sanctions

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant given his failure to comply with the Order was willful. (Motion, pgs. 7-8.) Plaintiff asserts the record is replete with Defendant’s failures to answer discovery requests despite numerous opportunities and plenty of time granted given Defendant has refused to respond, “despite agreeing to in open Court and signing a protective order to that end; despite the issuance of Court orders; despite the withdrawal of his counsel, or the risk of monetary sanctions.” (Motion, pg. 8; Decl. of Bulone ¶10.) Accordingly, Plaintiff requests the Court order issue and/or evidentiary against Defendant. (Motion, pgs. 9-12.) However, Plaintiff has not submitted sufficient evidence suggesting Defendant’s failure to comply has been willful to warrant sanctions beyond monetary sanctions, which the Court has not yet awarded against Defendant and for Plaintiff for Defendant’s failure to comply with Court orders and his discovery obligations. Notably, Defendant’s former counsel Adelson indicated he would be serving supplemental responses and failed to do so; at this stage, Defendant has not yet personally disobeyed the Court’s order to establish willfulness.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for issue and/or evidentiary sanctions against Defendant is denied.

Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff also requests an award of monetary sanctions against Defendant for violation of the Court’s orders in the amount of $3,400 pursuant to C.C.P. §177.5. While Plaintiff is entitled to an order awarding monetary sanctions against Defendant, Plaintiff failed to properly notice the request for sanctions, which only occurs in the body of the Memorandum of Points and Authorities and is not included in the Notice of Motion.

C.C.P. §177.5 provides that a judicial officer shall have the power to impose reasonable money sanctions, not to exceed $1,500, notwithstanding any other provision of law, payable to the court, for any violation of a lawful court order by a person, done without good cause or substantial justification.

As a preliminary matter, C.C.P. §177.5 does not entitle an award of monetary sanctions to Plaintiff for Defendant’s failure to comply with Court orders, but instead allows the Court to require Defendant to pay sanctions to the Court for his non-compliance. (See Caldwell v. Samuels Jewelers (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 970, 978; see also People v. Hooper (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 685, 688.) As such, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions for fees Plaintiff incurred in bringing the instant motion pursuant to C.C.P. §177.5 is misplaced. In addition, while Plaintiff would be entitled to monetary sanctions for Defendant’s abuse of the discovery process by failing to produce supplemental response, Plaintiff has not given sufficient notice of his monetary sanctions request. (See C.C.P. §§2023.030(a), 2023.040 [“A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.”].)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.

Dated: April _____, 2021

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court


[1] Although the Bulone declaration cites to Exhibits, none were attached to the declaration.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer KLEVENS JOEL N