Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/24/2020 at 17:18:52 (UTC).

HARRY HARALAMBUS VS LARRY RUSS ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/31/2015 HARRY HARALAMBUS filed an Other lawsuit against LARRY RUSS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GREGORY W. ALARCON. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5627

  • Filing Date:

    12/31/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

GREGORY W. ALARCON

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

HARALAMBUS HARRY

THE JAKARANDA TRUST

POKROY JULIAN

Defendants and Respondents

WERTS MARK

INDUSTRIES WERTS INC.

AMERICAN RAG COMPAGNIE

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

TARRANT APPAREL GROUP

AMERICAN RAG CIE II

PRIVATE BRANDS INC.

RUSS LARRY

FAULCON JACQUES RUDOLPHE

AMERICAN RAG CIE LLC

AMERICAN RAG CIE II INC.

Not Classified By Court

LAROCCA LAURA [BC426342]

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

WOLCOTT BARTHOLOMEW W.

MANAHAN FLASHMAN & BRANDON

Defendant Attorneys

MEYER NATHAN DANIEL

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT

CELINE C. CROSA DI VERGAGNI IN HOUSE

[I] ALLEN MATKINS LECK ET AL. LLP

CHRISTIAN W. TRUNNELL LAW OFFICES OF

KALUNIAN CAMERON MOORE

MATLOOB SABRINA

BRANDON DAVID MARSHALL

CONKLE CHRISTIAN WILLIAM

Other Attorneys

ADAM L. STRELTZER ATTORNEY AT LAW

 

Court Documents

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COMPEL LIMITED ARBITRATION

2/13/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COMPEL LIMITED ARBITRATION

Status Report

5/29/2019: Status Report

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

4/12/2016: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MARK WERTS, RUDOLPHE FALCON, AMERICAN RAG COMPAGNIE AND INDUSTRIES WERT'S NOTICE OF DEMUR AND DEMURRERS TO FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION

4/21/2016: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MARK WERTS, RUDOLPHE FALCON, AMERICAN RAG COMPAGNIE AND INDUSTRIES WERT'S NOTICE OF DEMUR AND DEMURRERS TO FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION

DECLARATION OF LARRY C. RUSS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS RUDOLPHE FALCON, AMERICAN RAG COMPAGNIE AND INDUSTRIES WERT'S DEMURRERS TO FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION AND OTHER DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO COMP

4/21/2016: DECLARATION OF LARRY C. RUSS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS RUDOLPHE FALCON, AMERICAN RAG COMPAGNIE AND INDUSTRIES WERT'S DEMURRERS TO FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION AND OTHER DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO COMP

DECLARATION OF NATHAN D. MEYER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS RUDOLPHE FALCON, AMERICAN RAG COMPAGNIE AND INDUSTRIES WERT'S DEMURRERS TO FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION AND OTHER DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO CO

4/21/2016: DECLARATION OF NATHAN D. MEYER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS RUDOLPHE FALCON, AMERICAN RAG COMPAGNIE AND INDUSTRIES WERT'S DEMURRERS TO FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION AND OTHER DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO CO

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS RUDOLPHE FAULCON, AMERICAN RAG COMPAGNIE AND INDUSTRIES WERTS' DEMURRERS TO FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION

5/17/2016: REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS RUDOLPHE FAULCON, AMERICAN RAG COMPAGNIE AND INDUSTRIES WERTS' DEMURRERS TO FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION

PLAINTIFF HARRY HARALAMBUS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' RUDOLPHE FAULCON, AMERICAN RAG COMPAGNIE AND INDUSTRIES WERTS'S DEMURRUERS TO FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION

5/18/2016: PLAINTIFF HARRY HARALAMBUS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' RUDOLPHE FAULCON, AMERICAN RAG COMPAGNIE AND INDUSTRIES WERTS'S DEMURRUERS TO FIRST AND SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

6/30/2016: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT AMERICAN RAG CIE II, INC 'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OF FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

7/20/2016: NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT AMERICAN RAG CIE II, INC 'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OF FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

7/22/2016: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

7/27/2016: ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

11/10/2016: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE

11/14/2016: NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE

COMPLAINT OF OMITTED PARTY; ETC.

11/16/2016: COMPLAINT OF OMITTED PARTY; ETC.

PLAINTIFF HARRY HARALAMBUS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY CASE PENDING ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO CCP 128.4

11/22/2016: PLAINTIFF HARRY HARALAMBUS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY CASE PENDING ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO CCP 128.4

OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY CASE PENDING ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO CCP 1281.4

11/23/2016: OBJECTION TO NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY CASE PENDING ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO CCP 1281.4

NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE

12/2/2016: NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE

119 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/08/2020
  • Hearing10/08/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 36 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2020
  • Docketat 11:30 AM in Department 36, Gregory W. Alarcon, Presiding; Status Conference - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 36, Gregory W. Alarcon, Presiding; Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 36, Gregory W. Alarcon, Presiding; Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/14/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2020
  • DocketStatus Report; Filed by Harry Haralambus (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2020
  • DocketNotice (OF FURTHER CHANGE OF TIME AND APPEARACNE FOR STATUS CONFERENCE AND ALL MATTERS SET FOR JULY 14, 2020); Filed by Harry Haralambus (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2020
  • DocketNotice (NOTICE OF CHANGE OF TIME AND APPEARANCE FOR STATUS CONFERENCE AND ALL MATTERS); Filed by Harry Haralambus (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Harry Haralambus (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2020
  • Docketat 1:50 PM in Department 36, Gregory W. Alarcon, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
241 More Docket Entries
  • 03/29/2016
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Larry Russ (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2016
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2016
  • DocketDECLARATION OF NATHAN D. MEYER PURSUANT TO CCP 430.4 1(A)(2)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2016
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2016
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2016
  • DocketNotice of Lien; Filed by Creditor

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2016
  • DocketNOTICE LIEN (ATTACHMENT)-

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2015
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Harry Haralambus (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2015
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT AND UNDERTAKING; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/31/2015
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC605627    Hearing Date: October 08, 2020    Dept: 36

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 36

HARRY HARALAMBUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

LARRY RUSS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC605627

Hearing Date: 10/8/2020

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Plaintiff’s Motions for Temporary Lift of Stayed Proceedings; Leave to File a First Amended Complaint; and Compel Arbitration

Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary lift of the stay of proceedings in this action is denied.

Plaintiff’s pendant motions for leave to file a First Amended Complaint asserting new causes of action and adding factual allegations, and to compel arbitration of several of those claims, are likewise denied, without prejudice pending the resolution of arbitration.

 

History of Proceedings

Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on December 31, 2015, alleging seven causes of action against defendants. On April 21, 2016, Defendant American Rag Cie II, Inc. moved to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief. On July 27, 2016, the Court granted the motion to compel arbitration. On October 4, 2016, the Jakaranda Trust was joined as an omitted party. On November 4, 2016, Defendants Larry Russ, Mark Werts, Jacques Rudolphe Faulcon, Industries Werts, Inc., American Rag Compagnie, American Rag CIE, LLC, and American Rag Cie II moved for an order to stay the remaining causes of action in the complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.4. On December 7, 2016, the court stayed the case pending the outcome of arbitration.

Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief against Defendant American Rag Cie II (“ARII”) and Doe Defendants seeks “judicial determination of PLAINTIFF’s percentage ownership interest in ARII currently and as of October 1, 2014.” (Compl., ¶ 78.)

Plaintiff now seeks leave to temporarily lift the stay on proceedings; to file a First Amended Complaint in this matter, which would add nine causes of action based on facts that have arisen during arbitration proceedings; to add factual allegations to the general allegations and existing causes of action; and to compel arbitration of six of the nine causes of action.

Stayed Proceedings

“Once a court grants the petition to compel arbitration and stays the action at law, the action at law sits in the twilight zone of abatement with the trial court retaining merely a vestigial jurisdiction over matters submitted to arbitration.” (Brock v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1790, 1796.) “During that time, under its ‘vestigial’ jurisdiction, a court may; appoint arbitrators if the method selected by the parties fails (§ 1281.6); grant a provisional remedy ‘but only upon the ground that the award to which an applicant may be entitled may be rendered ineffectual without provisional relief’ (§ 1281.8, subd. (b)); and confirm, correct or vacate the arbitration award (§ 1285).” (Titan/Value Equities Group, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 482, 487.)Absent an agreement to withdraw the controversy from arbitration, however, no other judicial act is authorized.” (Id.)

“Whether to permit the filing of an amended and supplemental complaint, thus bringing new issues and new parties in the pending action which has been stayed pending arbitration . . . is a matter that rests in the sound judgment of the trial judge.” (Cook v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 622, 624.)

Both parties rely on MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 643 (MJKA, Inc.). There, the Court of Appeal discussed the Court’s authority to lift a stay of proceedings imposed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 1281.4. The Court noted that “[t]he purpose of the statutory stay [required pursuant to section 1281.4] is to protect the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by preserving the status quo until arbitration is resolved.” (Id. at 658.) The Court assumed, without deciding, that the trial court possesses “some amount of discretion to lift a stay imposed pursuant to section 1281.4, prior to the completion of an ordered arbitration” but noted that the scope of that discretion was not statutorily defined. (Id. at 660.) The Court found that “the most reasonable interpretation of the stay provision is that it grants a trial court discretion to lift a stay prior to the completion of arbitration only under circumstances in which lifting the stay would not frustrate the arbitrator's jurisdiction.” (Id.) The Court cited one narrow circumstance in which the Legislature may have intended a trial court be authorized to lift a stay prior to the completion of arbitration: “[i]f an issue in litigation subject to a stay is removed from the litigation (e.g., where a party amends its complaint to remove the arbitrable claim from the litigation) or the arbitrable controversy is removed from the arbitration (e.g., through agreement of the parties) such that the arbitrator's jurisdiction would not be frustrated by the litigation, there would be no reason for a stay of the litigation to remain in effect.” (Id. at 660-661.) In contrast, lifting a stay based on a determination that a party could not afford the costs associated with arbitration would “directly and materially impede the arbitrator's jurisdiction” and would be inconsistent with California’s public policy favoring contractual arbitration, as well as “inconsistent with well established case law holding that a trial court retains only a very narrow scope of jurisdiction with respect to an action that has been stayed pending arbitration.” (Id. at 661.)

Plaintiff asserts without citation that a temporary lift of the stay imposed in this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure would not frustrate the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator over Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action in the arbitration proceedings, as Plaintiff seeks to add new causes of action. (See Mot. at pp. 12-13.) Defendants assert that the court should not lift the stay, because the arbitration is ready for hearing as soon as the parties pay the arbitrator to conduct it; and because the court has limited jurisdiction during a stay of proceedings; and further noting the Arbitrator in this action found that, when Plaintiff sought to add similar claims in the arbitration, the Arbitrator found that these claims were best addressed only after the completion of arbitration.

On consideration of the foregoing and the evidence before the court, the request for a temporary lift of the stay of proceedings in this action is denied. The narrow circumstances delineated in MJKA, Inc., are not present; the court does not find authority by which it may expand its jurisdiction to lift a stay prior to the completion of arbitration in these circumstances sufficient to overcome the “well established case law holding that a trial court retains only a very narrow scope of jurisdiction with respect to an action that has been stayed pending arbitration.” (See MJKA, Inc., supra, at 660-661.) Furthermore, the court would encroach upon the Arbitrator’s jurisdiction by questioning the Arbitrator’s Ruling dated July 13, 2019, in the uncompleted arbitration, denying an amendment to the complaint to include a similar claim of breach of fiduciary duty on the part of Defendants. (See Meyer Decl., Exh. C, at p. 2.)

As the request to temporarily lift the stay of proceedings in this action is denied, the pendant requests for leave to file a First Amended Complaint in this action, and to compel arbitration of several of those claims, are likewise denied, without prejudice pending the resolution of arbitration.

Dated: ____________________________

Gregory Alarcon

Superior Court Judge

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where AMERICAN RAG CIE II A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer STRELTZER ADAM LEE