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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Santa Monica Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JOHN H. REID
RICHARD A. STONE
MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF
WHITE ZUCKERMAN WARSAVSKY LUNA & HUNT
GOLDMAN MARTIN F.
WIRE R. THOMAS
RAPKIN MICHAEL S.
DERBY & CURTIS
SILVER & FREEDMAN
MEYER LIN M.
WHEELER & SHEEHAN
WEXLER GARY A.
BERGER MICHAEL JAY LAW OFFICES OF
WOO FELIX THOMAS
10/29/2013: Minute Order
10/29/2013: Minute Order
3/20/2014: Minute Order
1/26/2015: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
7/2/2015: Notice of Ruling
9/14/2015: Case Management Statement
1/6/2016: Substitution of Attorney
7/21/2016: Notice of Stay of Proceedings
5/31/2017: Minute Order
11/30/2018: 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
5/13/2019: Minute Order
Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department M; Case Management Conference - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Substitution of Attorney; Filed by BEAU CAMERON (Plaintiff); BEAU (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department M; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (for Failure to Appear and Timely Prosecute) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Appear and T...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department M; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (for Failure to Appear and Timely Prosecute) - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ((Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Appear and T...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Other - (Anzhey Barantsevich's response to order to show cause); Filed by Anzhey Barantsevich (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give NoticeRead MoreRead Less
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 DepartmentRead MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2010-04-28 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Cross-complaint filed; Filed by Attorney for DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Motion to Compel; Filed by DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Cross-Complaint; Filed by AHNZEY BARANTSEVICH (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Declaration; Filed by AHNZEY BARANTSEVICH (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Motion to Compel (ARBITRATION ); Filed by Attorney for DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Declaration (Anzhev Barantsevich ); Filed by Attorney for DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by BEAU CAMERON (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Complaint FiledRead MoreRead Less
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
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.
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.
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.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases