Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/02/2019 at 02:17:10 (UTC).

EISNER JAFFE GORRY CHAPMAN & ROSS, P.C. VS JEFF FRANKLIN

Case Summary

On 11/16/2015 EISNER JAFFE GORRY CHAPMAN ROSS, P C filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against JEFF FRANKLIN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF and LAWRENCE CHO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5000

  • Filing Date:

    11/16/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Santa Monica Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF

LAWRENCE CHO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

EISNER JAFFE GORRY CHAPMAN & ROSS P.C.

Defendants

FRANKLIN JEFF

ANOTHER TIME INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

VASQUEZ OLIVER J. APC

DAMIAN CAPOZZOLA ESQ.

CAPOZZOLA DAMIAN DOMINICK

Defendant Attorneys

LEVINE STEPHEN MARC

STEPHEN M. LEVINE

ARON SIMON J

 

Court Documents

Civil Case Cover Sheet

11/16/2015: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Case Management Statement

2/19/2016: Case Management Statement

Legacy Document

3/2/2016: Legacy Document

Minute Order

5/9/2016: Minute Order

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

8/23/2016: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Minute Order

10/3/2016: Minute Order

Legacy Document

11/30/2016: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

1/26/2017: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

3/23/2017: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

3/23/2017: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

3/28/2017: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

4/12/2017: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

8/16/2018: Legacy Document

Minute Order

8/16/2018: Minute Order

Legacy Document

9/19/2018: Legacy Document

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

11/5/2018: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Objection

11/30/2018: Objection

Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone

2/11/2019: Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone

73 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/27/2019
  • Reply (In Support of Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint); Filed by Jeff Franklin (Defendant); Another Time Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2019
  • Request for Judicial Notice; Filed by Eisner Jaffe Gorry Chapman & Ross, P.C. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2019
  • Objection (to Request for Judicial Notice); Filed by Eisner Jaffe Gorry Chapman & Ross, P.C. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2019
  • Declaration (of Damian D. Capozzola); Filed by Eisner Jaffe Gorry Chapman & Ross, P.C. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2019
  • Opposition (to Demurrer and Request for Sanctions); Filed by Eisner Jaffe Gorry Chapman & Ross, P.C. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/11/2019
  • Notice of Intent to Appear by Telephone; Filed by Eisner Jaffe Gorry Chapman & Ross, P.C. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by Eisner Jaffe Gorry Chapman & Ross, P.C. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by Jeff Franklin (Defendant); Another Time Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
141 More Docket Entries
  • 03/01/2016
  • Declaration (DECLARATION NON SERVICE ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2016
  • Notice (OF POSTING JURY FEES ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2016
  • Notice; Filed by Eisner Jaffe Gorry Chapman & Ross, P.C. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2016
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by Eisner Jaffe Gorry Chapman & Ross, P.C. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2016
  • Statement-Case Management; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2015
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2015
  • Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2015
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2015
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Eisner Jaffe Gorry Chapman & Ross, P.C. (Plaintiff); Jeff Franklin (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC125000    Hearing Date: January 11, 2021    Dept: M

CASE NAME: Eisner Jaffe Gorry Chapman & Ross, P.C. v. Jeff Franklin

CASE NUMBER: SC125000

MOTION: Cross-Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions

HEARING DATE: 1/11/2021

Background

On October 3, 2019, Cross-Defendants Eisner Jaffe Gorry Chapman & Ross, P.C. and Michael Eisner (the “Eisner Parties”) filed a motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. On the same date, the Eisner Parties filed their demurrer to the cross-complaint that is the subject of the section 128.7 motion. Cross-Defendants argue that ATI’s Cross-Complaint asserts frivolous legal contentions, and that it was presented for the improper purposes of harassment, delay, and to increase the cost of litigation costs.

On March 11, 2020, the Court sustained Cross-Defendants’ demurrer to the Cross-Complaint without leave to amend because the cross-complaint was filed after the statute of limitations has passed. The hearing on the sanctions motion was initially set for April 10, 2020. The Court continued the hearing to June 26, 2020. (See 4/10/2020 Order.) On September 28, 2020, the Court scheduled the hearing on the motions for sanctions for January 11, 2021. (See 09/28/2020 Notice of Rulings.)

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7(b), an attorney or an unrepresented party “is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, all of the following conditions are met [with respect to that paper]:

(1) It is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

(2) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.

(3) The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.

(4) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7(b))

“A motion for sanctions under this section shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). Notice of motion shall be served as provided in Section 1010, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion, or any other period as the court may prescribe, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7(c)(1).)

“A claim is factually frivolous if it is ‘not well grounded in fact’ and it is legally frivolous if it is ‘not warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.’” Peake v. Underwood  (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 156, 167].) “A claim is objectively unreasonable if ‘any reasonable attorney would agree that [it] is totally and completely without merit.’” (Id. at 440 [quoting In re Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d 637, 650] [citing Guillemin, supra, at p. 168.]) “The fact that a plaintiff [or Cross-Complainant] fails to provide a sufficient showing to overcome a demurrer or to survive summary judgment is not, in itself, enough to warrant the imposition of sanctions. [citations omitted.]” (id. at 448.)

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

ATI requests judicial notice of the opposition it submitted to the demurrer to the cross-complaint. The document is a court record and is judicially noticeable. ATI’s request for judicial notice in opposition to the motion for sanctions is GRANTED.

Analysis

The Eisner Parties provided Cross-Complainants notice of this motion before filing this motion as required by section 128.7. (See Ex. C.) In addition, the Eisner Parties filed ths motion prior to the Court granting its demurrer.

In their motion, the Eisner Parties argue that ATI’s cross-complaint (1) was brought forth for the improper purposes of harassment, delay, and to increase the cost of litigation, (2) asserts frivolous legal contentions, and (3) that ATI knew that the cross-complaint was barred. The Eisner Parties argue that they are entitled to sanctions in the amount of $2,983.61 against Cross-Complainant ATI and its counsel. In a supporting declaration, Cross-Defendants note that they will have incurred $2,983.61 in making this motion, making an appearance for Cross-Defendant Michael Eisner, as well as have incurred fees with respect to the demurrer to the cross-complaint. (See generally Capozzola Decl.)

In opposition, ATI argues the Cross-Complaint did not assert frivolous legal contentions and was not presented for the improper purpose of harassment, delay and to increase the cost of litigation. ATI further argues that it filed its Cross-Complaint because it believed it had appropriate and timely causes of action against Cross-Complainants. ATI further argues that an attorney’s breach of fiduciary duty is not per se legal malpractice, and that the opposition to the demurrer demonstrates that it was brough in good faith based upon facts supported by evidence and the law.

“To be entitled to sanctions the moving party must show the action or tactic was in bad faith and frivolous or brought solely to cause unnecessary delay. [fn. omitted.] (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1343 [emphasis in original].) “[A]n attorney needs only a reasonable and honest belief in the viability of each theory and the evidence supporting that theory, not a conviction his client will prevail, to justify filing a claim or defense. [Citation.]” (Talavera v. Nevarez (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 6 [quoting another source].)

Here, ATI has presented a declaration demonstrating that its counsel had a reasonable and good faith belief in the causes of action asserted. While the Court disagreed with ATI and sustained the demurrer to the Cross-complaint, the Eisner Parties have not shown that ATI brought the cross-complaint to harass, or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. Therefore, the motion for sanctions is denied.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where EISNER JAFFE APC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer LEVINE STEPHEN MARC