Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/06/2016 at 22:01:29 (UTC).

BARBARA DONAHUE VS NEUBERGER BERMAN

Case Summary

On 12/18/2012 BARBARA DONAHUE filed an Other lawsuit against NEUBERGER BERMAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ALLAN J. GOODMAN and CRAIG D. KARLAN. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9481

  • Filing Date:

    12/18/2012

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Santa Monica Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ALLAN J. GOODMAN

CRAIG D. KARLAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

DONAHUE BARBARA

Defendants

BERMAN NEUBERGER

CSC LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/16/2013
  • Motion to Dismiss Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2013
  • Proof of Service Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2013
  • Proof of Service of Summons & Com Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2013
  • Request for Entry of Default (AS TO NEUBERGER BERMAN - ENTERED ) Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2013
  • Request for Entry of Default (AS TO NEUBERGER BERMAN - REJECTED *SEE REJECTION NOTICE DATE 4/23/13 ) Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2013
  • Notice-Case Reassignment and Order Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2013
  • Declaration Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2013
  • Motion (TO TAKE 4/15/13 APPEARANCE DATE OFF CALENDAR AS PLAINTIFF AWAITS DEFAULT; NO HEARING REQUIRED ) Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2013
  • Miscellaneous-Other (ADDENDUM TO COMPLAINT TO QUIET TITLE, ENJOIN THE FORECLOSURE & OBTAIN A PERMANENT INJUNCTION ) Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2013
  • Declaration (RE: ATTORNEY FEES ) Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2013
  • Declaration (OF DUE DILIGENCE FOR SUBSTITUTE SERVICE ) Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2013
  • Request for Entry of Default (AS TO NEUBERGER BERMAN REJECTED SEE NOTICE DATED 2/11/13 ) Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2013
  • Declaration Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2012
  • Statement of Damages Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2012
  • Proof of Service Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2012
  • Proof-Service/Summons Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2012
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2012
  • Order (DISMISSAL ) Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC119481    Hearing Date: February 24, 2021    Dept: P


Case Number: SC121303    Hearing Date: February 24, 2021    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Kleidman v. RFF Family Partnership, Case No. SC121303

Hearing Date February 24, 2021

Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Arbitration Proceedings

In February 2014 the court ordered plaintiff’s fourth cause of action to arbitration, stayed until the remaining causes of action were resolved. In December 2019 plaintiff moved for entry of judgment pursuant to a settlement of the fourth cause of action. The parties failed to agree on language for a proposed judgment, and on September 1, 2020 plaintiff filed a notice that the parties had not agreed. Plaintiff moves to reopen arbitration proceedings as to the fourth cause of action, given the failure of the settlement agreement.

A court has inherent statutory powers to control its process and the litigation before it. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §§128(a), 187.

Arbitration of the fourth cause of action ended when the parties reached a written settlement agreement. In the intervening time, the parties failed to reduce the terms to writing. There is no basis to reopen arbitration. Neither party disputes that an enforceable settlement agreement was formed, and plaintiff provided no substantive argument as to why that settlement agreement is unenforceable, simply because the parties could not agree to the specific language. There is nothing left to arbitrate. Since the parties have been unable to agree on the terms of a written judgment, the court will enter the proposed judgment set forth in plaintiff’s 2/27/2020 motion as the final judgment, unless defendant wishes to file written objections and offer alternative proposed language within 10 court days. The parties will be ordered to meet and confer regarding the language. DENIED pursuant to the above terms.

DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO AVOID IN PERSON APPEARANCES AND APPEAR VIA LA COURT CONNECT.

Case Number: SC119481    Hearing Date: February 05, 2021    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Donahue v. Neuberger Berman, Case No. SC119481

Hearing Date February 5, 2021

Defendant’s Motion for Order Recalling and Quashing Writ of Execution

In September 2020 plaintiff obtained a writ of execution against defendant for $308,805.36 and sought to levy on defendant’s assets at Fidelity Investments. Defendant moves to recall the writ and reverse the levy.

After the clerk enters default, a plaintiff may “apply to the court for the relief demanded in the complaint[,]” after which the court shall consider the plaintiff’s evidence and determine whether to enter judgment. Code of Civ. Proc. §585(b). A clerk’s entry of default is not the same as a default judgment; a plaintiff must acquire the former before obtaining the latter. A valid writ of execution must be based on a court’s entry of judgment. Code of Civ. Proc. §699.520 (e) and (f). A writ of execution may be recalled and quashed if issuance was improperly or inadvertently made. E.g. Meyer v. Meyer (1952) 115 Cal.App.2d 48, 49.

Defendant argues the writ must be quashed and the levy reversed because plaintiff does not have a judgment. Indeed, there is no record in the court file of a judgment entered. Plaintiff seeks judicial notice of a clerk’s entry of default of April 26, 2013. Plaintiff’s Exh. 2. While judicial notice is proper, under Code of Civ. Proc. §585 a clerk’s entry of default is not the same as a default judgment. Plaintiff did obtain a clerk’s default, but on May 17, 2013, the court declined to enter default judgment on the grounds that plaintiff did not file a 585 declaration, and the complaint was not well pled. See 5/17/13 minute order. As plaintiff never obtained a judgment, no writ of execution should have issued.

Plaintiff argues the motion is untimely, citing to the time limit for motions to set aside and vacate a judgment of Code of Civ. Proc. §633a(b). Defendant is not moving to set aside a judgment, so the statute does not apply. Because there was no underlying judgment, plaintiff’s writ of execution was issued improperly. The writ must be quashed and the levy reversed. GRANTED.

DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR VIA LA COURT CONNECT.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CSC LAWYERS INCORPORATION SERVICE is a litigant