This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/02/2019 at 01:04:06 (UTC).

D AND M GENERAL CONTRACTOR INC VS SAM ESHAGHIAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/09/2016 D AND M GENERAL CONTRACTOR INC filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against SAM ESHAGHIAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RICHARD E. RICO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9762

  • Filing Date:

    02/09/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

RICHARD E. RICO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

D AND M GENERAL CONTRACTOR INC.

Defendants and Respondents

PACIFIC CENTER PLACE LLC

DOES 1 TO 100

ESHAGHIAN SAM

AVALON PARK PLAZA LLC

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

ESHAGHIAN RUTH

MILLENNIUM EQUITY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

DANESHRAD LAW FIRM APC

Defendant Attorneys

DERMER GABRIEL S.

MOSS JAMES A.

MOSS JAMES A

COHEN EARLE H. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF ERRATA RE CORRECTION OF DEPARTMENT NUMBER OF DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1/17/2018: NOTICE OF ERRATA RE CORRECTION OF DEPARTMENT NUMBER OF DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

D AND M GENERAL CONSTRUCTOR., INC'S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINANT AVALON PARK PLAZA, LLC'S CROSS- COMPLAINT

2/7/2018: D AND M GENERAL CONSTRUCTOR., INC'S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINANT AVALON PARK PLAZA, LLC'S CROSS- COMPLAINT

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT: 1. FORECLOSURE OF MECHANICS' LIEN; ETC

4/30/2018: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT: 1. FORECLOSURE OF MECHANICS' LIEN; ETC

NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT SAM ESHAGHIAN, AND DEFENDANT AVALON PARK PLAZA, LLC, TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF D AND M GENERAL CONTRACTOR, INC.; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AU

6/13/2018: NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT SAM ESHAGHIAN, AND DEFENDANT AVALON PARK PLAZA, LLC, TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF D AND M GENERAL CONTRACTOR, INC.; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AU

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SAM ESHAGHIAN AND AVALON PARK PLAZA, LLP'S MOTION TO STRIKE OPORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

7/18/2018: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SAM ESHAGHIAN AND AVALON PARK PLAZA, LLP'S MOTION TO STRIKE OPORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT RUTH ESHAGHIAN TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF D AND M GENERAL CONTRACTOR, INC.; ETC.

7/30/2018: NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT RUTH ESHAGHIAN TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF D AND M GENERAL CONTRACTOR, INC.; ETC.

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; ETC.

8/28/2018: THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; ETC.

Notice

10/15/2018: Notice

Minute Order

1/18/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

2/15/2019: Minute Order

SUMMONS

2/9/2016: SUMMONS

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

2/23/2016: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

Minute Order

6/2/2016: Minute Order

Minute Order

2/16/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

4/21/2017: Minute Order

NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS

7/20/2017: NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS

NOTICE OF RULING

8/22/2017: NOTICE OF RULING

NOTICE OF RULING RE STATUS CONFERENCE OF OCTOBER 25, 2017

11/28/2017: NOTICE OF RULING RE STATUS CONFERENCE OF OCTOBER 25, 2017

67 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/23/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/15/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • Answer; Filed by MILLENNIUM EQUITY (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Sam Eshaghian (Defendant); Avalon Park Plaza, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Strike (Third Amended Complaint) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
145 More Docket Entries
  • 04/28/2016
  • Minute order entered: 2016-04-28 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/28/2016
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2016
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 17; Unknown Event Type - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2016
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2016
  • Minute order entered: 2016-03-03 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2016
  • Notice of Related Case; Filed by D and M General Contractor, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2016
  • NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR 1. FORECLOSURE OF MECHANICS LIEN AGAINST AVALON PLAZA; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by D and M General Contractor, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC609762    Hearing Date: April 7, 2021    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

D & M GENERAL CONSTRUCTOR

vs.

SAM ESHAGHIAN, et al.

Case No.: BC609762

Hearing Date: April 7, 2021

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RFPs referenced below are GRANTED. Defendant is awarded sanctions totaling $3,000.

On 2/9/2016, Plaintiff D and M General Contractor, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed suit against Sam Eshaghian, Avalon Park Plaza, LLC, and Pacific Center Place, LLC. On 8/28/2018, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint (TAC), alleging: (1) foreclosure of mechanics’ lien; (2) breach of written contract, count 1; (3) breach of written contract, count 2; (4) common counts; (5) fraud; (6) negligent misrepresentation; (7) imposition of constructive trust; (8) intentional fraudulent transfer; (9) constructive fraudulent transfer; and (10) declaratory relief.

Now, Defendant Millennium Equity Funding, LLC (Millennium) moves to compel further discovery responses from Plaintiff. For ease, the court has consolidated its analysis on Defendant’s three motions into a single ruling.

Discussion

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes, and grants, Defendant’s request for an extension from the discovery cut-off. Defendant should not be prejudiced by Plaintiff’s willful delays.

Form Interrogatories

Defendant argues that Plaintiff should be compelled to issue further responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 12.1, 14.1, and 50.3-50.6.

After review of Plaintiff’s responses, the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s responses are not full and complete. For example, Plaintiff responded to Form Interrogatory 12.1, which asks for the name, address, and telephone of any relevant witnesses, with “The parties to this action.” This response is incomplete on its face. Similarly, Plaintiff responded to Form Interrogatory 14.1 which asks if it contends that any person involved in the incident violated any law, with “Yes. Discovery is continuing.” Not only is this answer incomplete on its face, but discovery has been ongoing for over five years and no supplemental response has been provided. Finally, Plaintiff’s “N/A” response to Nos. 50.3-50.6 are similarly incomplete on their face, in that they fail to explain why they believe the form interrogatory is not applicable here.

Plaintiff’s responses are not “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (CCP § 2030.220, subd. (a).) Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to the form interrogatories referenced above is granted.

Special Interrogatories

Defendant argues that Plaintiff should be compelled to issue further responses to three batches of Special Interrogatory:

- Numbers 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 35, 38, 41, 44, 47, 50, 53, 56, 59, 62, 65, 68, 71, 74, 77, 80, 83, 86, 89, 92, 95, 98, 101, 104, 107, 110, 113 and 116. These Special Interrogatories seek the disclosure of “all facts which support” a fundamental contention alleged in the TAC supporting its three causes of action against Defendant.

- Numbers 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 37, 40, 43, 46, 49, 52, 55, 58, 61, 64, 67, 70, 73, 76, 79, 82, 85, 88, 91, 94, 97, 100, 103, 106, 109, 112 and 115. These Special Interrogatories seek the disclosure of “all documents which support” a fundamental contention alleged in the TAC supporting its three causes of action against Defendant.

- Special Interrogatory Numbers 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45, 48, 51, 54, 57, 60, 63, 66, 69, 72, 75, 78, 81, 84, 87, 90, 93, 96, 99, 102, 105, 108, 111, 114 and 117. These Special Interrogatories seek the disclosure “the name, address, and telephone number of each person who is a witness to or can testify as to any of the facts which support” a fundamental contention alleged in the TAC supporting its three causes of action against Defendant.

After a review of Plaintiff’s responses, the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s responses are not “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (CCP § 2030.220, subd. (a).) Specifically, Plaintiff repeats generic responses lacking any specificity for multiple factual contentions. For example, Plaintiff provided the same response (“The loan agreements; Plaintiff’s payment requests; Loan purchase agreement; Plaintiff’s invoices; foreclosure documents; Mechanic Lien documents; proposal and contract on the property; City file) to a question about all documents supporting the contention that the City of Los Angeles required that the asset for Avalon Park Plaza be at least $879,838.00, and a question asking for support of Sam Eshaghian and Avalon Park Plaza’s refusal to comply with the City of LA’s auditing process. Not only does this response fail to specify which loan agreements, which payment requests, and so on, but Plaintiff also must respond specifically to each factual contention.

Plaintiff’s responses are not “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (CCP § 2030.220, subd. (a).) Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to the special interrogatories referenced above is granted.

Requests for Production

Defendant argues that Plaintiff should be compelled to issue further responses to its RFPs Nos. 1-39.

Defendant’s RFP Nos. 1-29 seek “[a]ny and all documents identified in your response to Special Interrogatory No[s]. 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 35, 38, 41, 44, 47, 50, 53, 56, 59, 62, 65, 68, 71, 74, 77, 80, 83, 86, 89, 92, 95, 98, 101, 104, 107, 110, 113 and 116.”

Plaintiff issued an identical response to each request that “The responding party will comply with this request.” While Plaintiff provided documents, none of the 2,570 pages of documents are identified with the specific number to which it responds.

Plaintiff’s RFP responses are not code compliant (CCP section 2031.280, subdivision (a), “[a]ny documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.”) Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to the RFPs referenced above is granted.

Sanctions

Plaintiff’s responses are clearly not code-compliant, and evince willful abuse of the discovery process. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that despite discovery having been open for over five years, the discovery period now has to be extended to allow Defendant an opportunity to obtain vital discovery. Plaintiff and counsel are sanctioned $1,000 per motion, bringing Defendant’s awarded sanctions to $3,000 total.

It is so ordered.

Dated: April , 2021

Hon. Jon R. Takasugi Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.

Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances. Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk. The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

D & M GENERAL CONSTRUCTOR

vs.

SAM ESHAGHIAN, et al.

Case No.: BC609762

Hearing Date: April 7, 2021

Defendant’s motion to compel deposition and produce documents is GRANTED. Defendant is awarded the $460.00 in requested sanctions.

On 2/9/2016, Plaintiff D and M General Contractor, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed suit against Sam Eshaghian, Avalon Park Plaza, LLC, and Pacific Center Place, LLC. On 8/28/2018, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint (TAC), alleging: (1) foreclosure of mechanics’ lien; (2) breach of written contract, count 1; (3) breach of written contract, count 2; (4) common counts; (5) fraud; (6) negligent misrepresentation; (7) imposition of constructive trust; (8) intentional fraudulent transfer; (9) constructive fraudulent transfer; and (10) declaratory relief.

Now, Defendant Millennium Equity Funding, LLC (Millennium) moves to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and the production of documents. Defendant also seeks sanctions totaling $460.00

Legal Standard

Code of Civil procedure section 2025.450(a) provides a mechanism by which to compel the deposition of a party. “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under¿Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under¿Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information,¿or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information,¿or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” 

Discussion

Millennium argues that good cause exists for this motion as a result of Plaintiff’s failure to appear because: (1) Millennium noticed the deposition (for March 9, 2021) on February 25, 20121 after previously confirming D&M’s availability; (2) the discovery requested seeks the identification of supporting facts, witnesses and documents to D&M’s core allegations of its operative, verified Third Amended Compliant (TAC); (3) D&M’s unilaterally cancelled the deposition on March 5, 2021 (four days before the notice deposition) without justification for doing so and (4) D&M refuses to provide any rescheduled dates on which it will appear and produce responsive documents. (Motion, 2: 14-21.)

The Court agrees, based on the facts set forth in Millennium’s motion, that good cause exists to compel Plaintiff to appear for deposition and produce documents. No adequate answer has been provided by Plaintiff for the delay, and Plaintiff’s delay tactics are not viewed favorably by the Court. Plaintiff’s counsel’s apparent explanation to Defendant that he did want to proceed with depositions because he was attempting to withdraw as counsel does not constitute an acceptable explanation. Plaintiff initiated this action and may not prevent Defendant from participating in its own defense by withholding access to essential discovery .

Defendant’s motion to compel deposition and produce documents is granted. (CCP §2025.450(a).) Defendant is awarded the $460.00 in requested sanctions.

It is so ordered.

Dated: April , 2021

Hon. Jon R. Takasugi Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.

Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances. Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk. The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.

Case Number: BC609762    Hearing Date: March 25, 2021    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

D & M GENERAL CONSTRUCTOR

vs.

SAM ESHAGHIAN, et al.

Case No.: BC609762

Hearing Date: March 25, 2021

Defendant Millennium’s motion for summary adjudication is CONTINUED, pursuant to CCP section 437(c), subdivision (h) to May 27, 2021, at 10 a.m.

On 2/9/2016, Plaintiff D and M General Contractor, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed suit against Sam Eshaghian, Avalon Park Plaza, LLC, and Pacific Center Place, LLC. On 8/28/2018, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint (TAC), alleging: (1) foreclosure of mechanics’ lien; (2) breach of written contract, count 1; (3) breach of written contract, count 2; (4) common counts; (5) fraud; (6) negligent misrepresentation; (7) imposition of constructive trust; (8) intentional fraudulent transfer; (9) constructive fraudulent transfer; and (10) declaratory relief.

Now, Defendant Millennium Equity Funding, LLC (Millennium) moves for summary adjudication of the Plaintiff’ first cause of action.

Factual Background

This case concerns a property hereinafter referred to as the Avalon Property. The property was allegedly purchased in 2008 by Defendant Sam Eshaghian, through a loan secured from the City of Los Angles (City Loan). In 2012, Defendant Eshaghian and Avalon Park Plaza allegedly contracted with Plaintiff for Plaintiff to provide services for improvements to the Avalon Property. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Sam Eshaghian and Avalon Park Plaza later refused to reimburse Plaintiff for its services, and defaulted on their obligations with respect to the City Loan. Based on Defendants’ failure to reimburse, Plaintiff recorded a mechanics’ lien in 2015.

In 2017, the City of Los Angeles entered into a loan agreement with Millennium, wherein “Avalon Park Plaza through Sam Eshaghian and Ruth Eshaghian agreed to release the City of Los Angeles to facilitate the sale of the loan and property to Millennium…” (Complaint ¶ 46.)

Discussion

At issue here is whether or not Plaintiff’s mechanics lien or Millennium’s title interest has a priority interest in the Avalon Property.

Millennium argues that its title interest which originates from the 2008 deed of trust is senior in priority to Plaintiff’s mechanics’ lien which was recorded in 2015. While Plaintiff’s lien would have priority if the City Loan was “given for the sole or primary purpose of financing the site improvement” on the Avalon Property, Millennium submitted evidence to show that the primary purpose of the City Loan was to finance land acquisition and predevelopment costs for the project, not to finance site improvements. (SS ¶ 2.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argued that Millennium’s motion must be continued pursuant to CCP section 437(c), subdivision (h), which provides:

(h) If it appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, or both, that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented, the court shall deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, or make any other order as may be just. The application to continue the motion to obtain necessary discovery may also be made by ex parte motion at any time on or before the date the opposition response to the motion is due.

In support of its argument that this motion be continued, Plaintiff submitted a declaration from counsel wherein he stated:

- Plaintiff’s first cause of action turns on whether or not the purpose of the City Loan underlying the 2008 deed of trust was given for the sole or primary purpose of financing the site improvement. If it was, Plaintiff’s lien will have priority. (Daneshred Decl., ¶ 2.)

- Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to take the deposition of the City’s PMK about the primary purpose of the City Loan, nor has it had the opportunity to depose Sam Eshaghian as to the primary purpose of the City Loan. (Daneshred Decl., ¶ 3.) In fact, none of the parties in this case have been deposed, and written discovery between Plaintiff and Eshgahian are still outstanding. (Ibid.)

- The reason for the stall in discovery is “due to the health and family issues of Millennium’s prior attorney, Mr. James Moss, and his eventual retirement from the firm, as well as the pandemic.” (Daneshred Decl., ¶ 4.)

- Because Plaintiff has not taken these depositions, Plaintiff is unable to submit responsive evidence to Millennium’s motion for summary adjudication. (Daneshred Decl., ¶ 3.)

Based on Plaintiff’s submitted affidavit, the Court is persuaded that facts essential to Plaintiff’s opposition may exist, but cannot be presented for the reasons stated above. (CCP §437(c), subdivision (h).) Specifically, the depositions of the City’s PMK and Defendant Eshgahian may produce essential information to allow Plaintiff to show that the primary purpose for the City’s Loan was to finance site improvements.

Based on the foregoing, a continuance is warranted to allow the depositions of the City’s PMK and Defendant Eshgahian to take place. (CCP §437(c), subdivision (h).)

It is so ordered.

Dated: March , 2021

Hon. Jon R. Takasugi Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.

Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances. Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk. The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where D AND M GENERAL CONTRACTOR INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where AVALON PARK PLAZA LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MOSS JAMES A.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer COHEN EARLE H