Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/08/2019 at 02:02:47 (UTC).

BERNARDO ENCARNACION KOMAKALOI ET AL VS SAEED MODANLOU

Case Summary

On 10/11/2016 BERNARDO ENCARNACION KOMAKALOI filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against SAEED MODANLOU. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are HOWARD L. HALM and ROBERT B. BROADBELT. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6852

  • Filing Date:

    10/11/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

HOWARD L. HALM

ROBERT B. BROADBELT

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

KOMAKALOI BERNARDO ENCARNACION

GUILLEN HECTOR MANUEL

LOPEZ VINCENT DE JESUS

Defendants and Respondents

MODANLOU SAEED

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

A1 DECK & COATING

A-1 DECK & COATING

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF JACK D. JOSEPHSON APC

JOSEPHSON JACK DAVID

Defendant Attorney

SALLUS DANIEL R.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

3/5/2018: Minute Order

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL: 1. FAILURE TO PAY WAGES [LABOR CODE 201-202, 218, 218.5, 1194, 1194.2] 2. FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS [LABOR CODE 226.7 AND 512]; 3. FA

3/6/2018: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL: 1. FAILURE TO PAY WAGES [LABOR CODE 201-202, 218, 218.5, 1194, 1194.2] 2. FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEAL PERIODS [LABOR CODE 226.7 AND 512]; 3. FA

NOTICE OF RULING

3/6/2018: NOTICE OF RULING

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

4/6/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

9/4/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

9/11/2018: JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Order

11/16/2018: Order

Notice of Ruling

12/4/2018: Notice of Ruling

Stipulation and Order

3/14/2019: Stipulation and Order

Notice

3/19/2019: Notice

PLAINTIFFS? COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL: 1. FAILURE TO PAY WAGES JLABOR CODE ? 201-202, 218, 218.5, 1194, 1194.2]; ETC

10/11/2016: PLAINTIFFS? COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL: 1. FAILURE TO PAY WAGES JLABOR CODE ? 201-202, 218, 218.5, 1194, 1194.2]; ETC

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

10/20/2016: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

10/20/2016: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

11/28/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

DEFENDANT SAEED MONDANLOU, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DBA A-1 DECK & COATING'S ANSWER TO THE UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS BERNARDO ENCARNACION KOMAKALOI AND HECTOR MANUEL GUILLEN

1/4/2017: DEFENDANT SAEED MONDANLOU, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DBA A-1 DECK & COATING'S ANSWER TO THE UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFFS BERNARDO ENCARNACION KOMAKALOI AND HECTOR MANUEL GUILLEN

Unknown

1/23/2017: Unknown

Unknown

1/24/2017: Unknown

PLAINTIFFS' NOTICEOF TAKING MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S ANSWER OFF CALENDAR

3/27/2017: PLAINTIFFS' NOTICEOF TAKING MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S ANSWER OFF CALENDAR

28 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/19/2019
  • Notice (OF ORDER FOR A MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE); Filed by Saeed Modanlou (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2019
  • Joint Stipulation for Mandatory Settlement Conference (and Order); Filed by Bernardo Encarnacion Komakaloi (Plaintiff); Hector Manuel Guillen (Plaintiff); Vincent de Jesus Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2018
  • Notice of Ruling (Re Ex Parte Order); Filed by Bernardo Encarnacion Komakaloi (Plaintiff); Hector Manuel Guillen (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2018
  • Notice (of Association); Filed by Bernardo Encarnacion Komakaloi (Plaintiff); Hector Manuel Guillen (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2018
  • at 12:26 PM in Department 53, Robert B. Broadbelt, Presiding; Ex-Parte Proceedings

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/17/2018
  • Minute Order ((Ex-Parte Proceeding;)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2018
  • Order (ON EXPARTE APPLICATION); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2018
  • Declaration (of Jack D Josephson in Support of Ex parte Application); Filed by Bernardo Encarnacion Komakaloi (Plaintiff); Hector Manuel Guillen (Plaintiff); Vincent de Jesus Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
82 More Docket Entries
  • 12/28/2016
  • REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2016
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Bernardo Encarnacion Komakaloi (Plaintiff); Hector Manuel Guillen (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2016
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2016
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Bernardo Encarnacion Komakaloi (Plaintiff); Hector Manuel Guillen (Plaintiff); Vincent de Jesus Lopez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/11/2016
  • PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL: 1. FAILURE TO PAY WAGES JLABOR CODE 201-202, 218, 218.5, 1194, 1194.2]; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC636852    Hearing Date: February 03, 2021    Dept: 53

Komakaloi v. Modanlou, BC636852

On February 3, 2021, plaintiffs presented to the court an Ex Parte Application for an Order to Enter Stipulated Judgment to a Court Order (“Ex Parte Application”). Defendant Saeed Modanlou filed an opposition to the Ex Parte Application.

The court notes the following defects in plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application.

First, the Ex Parte Application is not accompanied by a declaration regarding notice as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1204(b). Although plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application refers to declarations of Jack D. Josephson and Daniel J. Goularte, and to exhibits attached to the Ex Parte Application and those declarations, plaintiffs have not filed any declarations or exhibits with their Ex Parte Application. Plaintiffs filed a “Notice of Errata to Ex Parte Application and Exhibits,” but it also fails to attach any declarations or exhibits to support the Ex Parte Application.

Second, although plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application requests that the court enter a stipulated judgment, plaintiffs have not filed a stipulation for entry of judgment, a proposed judgment, or any evidence to support their request to enter a judgment pursuant to stipulation.

The court therefore denies plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application.

The court orders the parties and their counsel to hold a meeting, conference call, or videoconference to discuss and try to settle all issues in the case no later than February 19, 2021.

The court orders plaintiffs to give notice of this order.

Case Number: BC636852    Hearing Date: December 02, 2020    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

bernardo encarnacio komakaloi , et al.;

Plaintiffs,

vs.

saeed modanlou dba a1 deck & Coating ;

Defendant.

Case No.:

BC636852

Hearing Date:

December 2, 2020

Time:

10:00 a.m.

[Tentative] Order RE:

motion for an order to vacate dismissal of the entire action

MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Bernardo Encarnacion Komakaloi, Hector Manuel Guillen, and Vincente De Jesus Lopez

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Saeed Modanlou dba A1 Deck & Coating

Motion for an Order to Vacate Dismissal of the Entire Action

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

On October 11, 2016, plaintiffs Bernardo Encarnacion Komakaloi, Hector Manuel Guillen, and Vincente De Jesus Lopez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendant Saeed Modanlou dba A1 Deck & Coating (“Defendant”).

On April 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a notice of unconditional settlement of the entire case, stating that (1) a Request for Dismissal would be filed within 45 days after the date of settlement, and (2) the date of settlement is April 15, 2019. (Notice of Settlement of Entire Case, filed April 25, 2019.) On April 26, 2019, the parties filed their “Joint Stipulation To Retain Jurisdiction After Dismissal; and [Proposed] Order.” However, the court declined to sign the stipulation and order to retain jurisdiction after dismissal because the stipulation was not signed by the parties, as required for a request for the court to retain jurisdiction after dismissal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. (Minute Order, filed August 22, 2019.) On the court’s own motion, the court scheduled an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) for November 4, 2019, in Department 53 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse at 8:30 a.m. (Id.)

On November 4, 2019, the court held at a hearing on the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement), but Plaintiffs were not present. (Minute Order, filed November 4, 2019.) The court noted that Plaintiffs received proper notice of the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement). (Id.) The court also noted that Plaintiffs had not filed a Request for Dismissal of the entire action within 45 days after the date of settlement. (Id.) The court therefore granted Defendant’s request to dismiss the action, and ordered the entire action dismissed without prejudice pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1385(b).

Plaintiffs now move to vacate the court’s November 4, 2019 order of dismissal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). Defendant opposes the motion.

DISCUSSION

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) provides a means for relief from default or default judgment entered as a result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. The section contains a discretionary provision: “The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) The section also contains a mandatory provision: “Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, the court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her own mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against his or her client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against his or her client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.” (Ibid.) Under the mandatory provision, the attorney’s neglect does not need to be excusable. (Henderson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 215, 225.)

Here, Plaintiffs move to vacate the order of dismissal under the both the discretionary and mandatory provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). Plaintiffs present the Declaration of Jack D. Josephson, their counsel, in which Mr. Josephson attests that he failed to appear at the November 4, 2019 Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal because the hearing date was not placed on his litigation calendar. (Josephson Decl., filed January 24, 2020, ¶ 6.) Mr. Josephson states in his declaration that his staff inadvertently and mistakenly did not place the hearing date on his calendar because his staff erroneously believed that all hearings regarding dismissal and settlement were non-appearances since the parties settled this action in April 2019 and filed a stipulated judgment in October 2019. (Ibid.)

In opposition, Defendant first contends that Plaintiffs’ motion is procedurally defective because Plaintiffs’ counsel of record failed to sign the motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, and because Plaintiffs failed to serve Defendant with the motion. Although Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to sign the memorandum of points and authorities attached to the motion, Plaintiffs’ counsel did sign the notice of motion. (Plaintiffs’ Motion, filed January 24, 2020, pp. 3:27, 8:19.) In addition, Plaintiffs’ counsel signed his declaration filed in support of the motion. (Josephson Decl., filed January 24, 2020, p. 3:16.) Under the circumstances, the court exercises its discretion to consider Plaintiffs’ motion despite Plaintiffs’ counsel’s failure to sign the Points and Authorities. The court also finds that Plaintiffs have complied with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 because the proof of service attached to Plaintiffs’ motion shows that Plaintiffs served the motion on Defendant at least 16 court days before the hearing.

Defendant next contends that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s neglect is not excusable. However, as discussed above, the attorney’s neglect need not be excusable under the mandatory provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). (Henderson, supra, 187 Cal.App.4th at p. 225.)

Finally, Defendant contends that, if the court grants Plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to section 473, subdivision (b), Plaintiffs’ counsel must be ordered to pay to Defendant reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs incurred by Defendant in opposing Plaintiffs’ motion. The court agrees. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b) [“The court shall, whenever relief is granted based on an attorney’s affidavit of fault, direct the attorney to pay reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs to opposing counsel or parties.”].) Defendant also requests the court to impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (c)(1)(a).

The court finds that Mr. Josephson’s declaration establishes that the dismissal of this case was entered through his mistake, inadvertence, and neglect. The court therefore grants Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the order dismissing this action entered on November 4, 2019, under the mandatory provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b). The court grants Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees. The court denies Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the court grants plaintiffs Bernardo Encarnacion Komakaloi, Hector Manuel Guillen, and Vincente De Jesus Lopez’s motion to vacate dismissal of the entire case. The court orders that the order dismissing this case, issued on November 4, 2019, is set aside and vacated. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)

Defendant requests a total of $6,346.60 for attorney’s fees and costs incurred in opposing Plaintiffs’ motion. The court finds that a total of $2,610 (3 hours x $485 per hour for Daniel Sallus = $1,455, plus 3 hours x $385 per hour for Jessica Wright = $1,155) is a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred by Defendant in opposing Plaintiffs’ motion. The court therefore orders Plaintiffs’ counsel Jack Josephson shall pay attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $2,610 to defendant Saeed Modanlou dba A1 Deck & Coating within 30 days of the date of service of this order.

The court sets an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) in this case on ________________, 2021, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 53.

The court orders Plaintiffs to give notice of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 2, 2020

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court