This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/11/2019 at 14:38:50 (UTC).

BEAU CAMERON VS. AHNZEY BARANTSEVICH ET. AL.

Case Summary

On 03/15/2010 BEAU CAMERON filed an Other lawsuit against AHNZEY BARANTSEVICH. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JOHN H. REID, LAWRENCE CHO, RICHARD A. STONE and MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7179

  • Filing Date:

    03/15/2010

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Santa Monica Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

JOHN H. REID

LAWRENCE CHO

RICHARD A. STONE

MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

CAMERON BEAU

Assignee and Assignor

WHITE ZUCKERMAN WARSAVSKY LUNA & HUNT

Defendants

BARANTSEVICH ANZHEY

BARANTSEVICH AHNZEY

BEAU

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Assignee and Plaintiff Attorneys

GOODMAN HOWARD

GOLDMAN MARTIN F.

WIRE R. THOMAS

RAPKIN MICHAEL S.

Defendant Attorneys

DERBY & CURTIS

SILVER & FREEDMAN

MEYER LIN M.

WEIXZ FREEDMAN

WHEELER & SHEEHAN

WEXLER GARY A.

BERGER MICHAEL JAY LAW OFFICES OF

WOO FELIX THOMAS

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

10/29/2013: Minute Order

Minute Order

10/29/2013: Minute Order

Minute Order

3/20/2014: Minute Order

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

1/26/2015: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice of Ruling

7/2/2015: Notice of Ruling

Case Management Statement

9/14/2015: Case Management Statement

Substitution of Attorney

1/6/2016: Substitution of Attorney

Notice of Stay of Proceedings

7/21/2016: Notice of Stay of Proceedings

Unknown

8/24/2016: Unknown

Unknown

9/14/2016: Unknown

Unknown

11/14/2016: Unknown

Minute Order

5/31/2017: Minute Order

Unknown

11/6/2017: Unknown

Unknown

5/21/2018: Unknown

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

11/30/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

12/21/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Minute Order

5/13/2019: Minute Order

Unknown

5/23/2019: Unknown

53 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/23/2019
  • Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by BEAU CAMERON (Plaintiff); BEAU (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (for Failure to Appear and Timely Prosecute) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Appear and T...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (for Failure to Appear and Timely Prosecute) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • Minute Order ((Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Appear and T...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2019
  • Other - (Anzhey Barantsevich's response to order to show cause); Filed by Anzhey Barantsevich (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2018
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

    Read MoreRead Less
427 More Docket Entries
  • 04/28/2010
  • at 08:30 am in Department WEF, John H. Reid, Presiding; Court Order (REASSIGNED PER SUPERVISING JUDGE,THE HONORABLE GERALD ROSENBERG, INDEPARTMENT WE-A.) - Transferred to Other Department

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/28/2010
  • Minute order entered: 2010-04-28 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2010
  • Cross-complaint filed; Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2010
  • Motion to Compel; Filed by Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2010
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by AHNZEY BARANTSEVICH (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2010
  • Declaration; Filed by AHNZEY BARANTSEVICH (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2010
  • Motion to Compel (ARBITRATION ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2010
  • Declaration (Anzhev Barantsevich ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2010
  • Complaint; Filed by BEAU CAMERON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2010
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC107179    Hearing Date: October 14, 2020    Dept: M

CASE NAME: Beau Cameron v. Ahnzey Barantsevich et al

CASE NO.: SC107179

MOTION: Motion to Dismiss Cross-Complaint Pursuant to CCP § 583.310

HEARING DATE: 10/14/2020

BACKGROUND

Anzhey Barantsevich filed his cross-complaint on April 26, 2010. On August 25, 2020, Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Beau Cameron brought a motion to dismiss under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 or 583.410.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310 states, “[a]n action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.310.). Section 583.360 provides that “[a]n action shall be dismissed by the court on its own motion or on motion of the defendant, after notice to the parties, if the action is not brought to trial within the time prescribed in this article.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.360(a).)

“In computing the time within which an action must be brought to trial pursuant to this article, there shall be excluded the time during which any of the following conditions existed: (a) The jurisdiction of the court to try the action was suspended [;] (b) Prosecution or trial of the action was stayed or enjoined[;] [or] (c) Bringing the action to trial, for any other reason, was impossible, impracticable, or futile. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.340.)

Per section 583.330, “[t]he parties may extend the time within which an action must be brought­ to trial pursuant to this article by the following means: (a) By written stipulation. The stipulation need not be filed but, if it is not filed, the stipulation shall be brought to the attention of the court if relevant to a motion for dismissal. [or] (b) [b]y oral agreement made in open court, if entered in the minutes of the court or a transcript is made.”

“The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the circumstances justifying application of section 583.340, subdivision (c)’s exception for impossibility, impracticability or futility. [Citation omitted.]” (Martinez v. Landry's Restaurants, Inc. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 783, 794.)

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s separate requests for judicial notice are GRANTED.

ANALYSIS

The cross-complaint at issue was filed on April 26, 2010 by Defendant Anzhey Barantsevich (“Defendant”). The same day, Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration. The motion to compel was granted on June 26, 2010. (See Ex. D to Pl.’s motion.) The Court stayed all proceedings, including the cross-complaint, pending the outcome of the arbitration between Plaintiff and Defendant. Plaintiff was successful in the arbitration and brough forth a motion to confirm the arbitration award, which was granted. The Judgment was entered in conformity with the arbitration award on June 15, 2012. (See Ex. H.). The Court also lifted the stay it had previously imposed. (See Id.) The Court finds that the stay was lifted when the Court entered judgment in conformity with the award on June 15, 2012. Therefore, the time to prosecute the case restarted on June 15, 2012.

Defendant filed a notice of bankruptcy on July 21, 2016. (See 7/21/2016 Notice of Stay of Proceedings.) By then, slightly more than four years had passed between June 15, 2012 and July 21, 2016 (4 Years, 1 month, and 6 days, along with 2 months from the filing date of April 26, 2012 through June 26, 2012). The Court issued the following order during a final status conference:

Pursuant to the Notice of filing of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and Bankruptcy Court Protect pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441 and 1446 on behalf of the Defendant ANZHEY BARATSEVICH, the matter is automatically stayed by operation of Federal Law. Accordingly, all future dates set in Department M are now advanced to this date and vacated.

The matter is now stayed in its entirety pending the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings.

(7/21/2016 Minute Order.) Defendant argues that the Court stayed the entire action while Plaintiff argues that the Court’s reference to federal law indicates that the stay only affected Plaintiff (as Cross-Defendant) and not Defendant. The plain language of the order states that the entire matter was stayed. Furthermore, 28 U.S. Code section 1441 concerns the removal of civil actions from state court to federal court and 28 U.S. Code section 1446 concerns foreclosure against the United States. Plaintiff provides evidence that Defendant dismissed the bankruptcy case on February 25, 2019. (See Ex. T. at 1, 35 (Dkt. 178.) Defendant had about nine months from February 25, 2019 to prosecute the case. The deadline to bring this case to trial was therefore in November of 2019.

In opposition, Defendant argues that there was a joint stipulation filed in September of 2019 staying the case once again. (See Opp. RJN. Ex. A; see also signed joint stipulation 9/18/2019.) The joint stipulation was signed by the Court and orders “the date of the stay is ordered to run from the date the involuntary petition was filed, July 11, 2019, to the date when the Chapter 7 proceeding is dismissed or otherwise resolved.” (See signed joint stipulation 9/18/2019 at 2.) Four months and 16 days passed from February 25, 2019 to July 11, 2019. A total of four years and nine months had passed by this time.

Plaintiff filed a notice of order of dismissal of bankruptcy proceedings on July 14, 2020. The Notice states on December 4, 2019, the subsequent bankruptcy proceeding was dismissed. That dismissal lifted the stay on December 4, 2019, unpausing the clock for the prosecution of the Defendants cross-complaint. The deadline elapsed in January or February 2020. Defendant did not inform the Court in his opposition when the deadline would have elapsed under his arguments. Defendant also argues (in a heading) that any argument that the five-year rule already expired between the time the involuntary bankruptcy case was dismissed until the hearing on this motion has no merit. Defendant does not support this contention.

As Cross-Complainant, Defendant has the burden of showing that there are circumstances of impossibility, impracticability, or futility. (See Gaines v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1081, 1100.) Defendant has not made any arguments as to impossibility, impracticability or futility. Since the deadline to prosecute this case occurred in January 2020 and Defendant failed to prosecute his cross-complaint, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where WHITE ZUCKERMAN WARSAVSKY LUNA & HUNT LLP. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer WIRE R. THOMAS ESQ.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer GOLDMAN MARTIN F