Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/04/2016 at 01:14:53 (UTC).

INFO TECH CORPORATION VS CALIFORNIA LAWYERS GROUP LLP

Case Summary

On 11/10/2014 INFO TECH CORPORATION filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against CALIFORNIA LAWYERS GROUP LLP. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SUZANNE G. BRUGUERA. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3358

  • Filing Date:

    11/10/2014

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

SUZANNE G. BRUGUERA

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

INFO TECH CORPORATION

TIME WARNER CABLE INC.

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

CALIFORNIA LAWYERS GROUP LLP

DOES 1 THROUGH 10

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

SAPIENT LAW GROUP P.C.

KAHANA AMIR M. ESQ.

SAPIENT LAW GROUP PC

WHITE & CASE LLP

 

Court Documents

SUMMONS

11/10/2014: SUMMONS

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

11/24/2014: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

CROSS-DEFENDANT INFO TECH CORPORATION'S DEMURRER TO CROSS- COMPLAINT

1/20/2015: CROSS-DEFENDANT INFO TECH CORPORATION'S DEMURRER TO CROSS- COMPLAINT

Unknown

2/5/2015: Unknown

CR0SS-DEFENIANT INFO TECH CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED CR0SS-COMPLAINT

4/24/2015: CR0SS-DEFENIANT INFO TECH CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED CR0SS-COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF CROSS-COMPLAINANT CALIFORNIA LAWYERS GROUP LLP TO STRIKE CROSS-DEFENDANT INFO TECH CORPORATION'S UNVERIFIED ANSWER TO THE VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT; MEMORAN

5/7/2015: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF CROSS-COMPLAINANT CALIFORNIA LAWYERS GROUP LLP TO STRIKE CROSS-DEFENDANT INFO TECH CORPORATION'S UNVERIFIED ANSWER TO THE VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT; MEMORAN

Unknown

8/3/2015: Unknown

Unknown

8/26/2015: Unknown

Unknown

8/28/2015: Unknown

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT CALIFORNIA LAWYERS GROUP, LLP FOR AN ORDER (1) COMPELLING TIME WARNER CABLE INC. TO COMPLY WITH REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUME

9/1/2015: SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT CALIFORNIA LAWYERS GROUP, LLP FOR AN ORDER (1) COMPELLING TIME WARNER CABLE INC. TO COMPLY WITH REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUME

CROSS-DEFENDANT TIME WARNER CABLE INC.'S: (1) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT CALIFORNIA LAWYERS GROUP, LLP TO PERMIT INSPECTION BY TIME

11/12/2015: CROSS-DEFENDANT TIME WARNER CABLE INC.'S: (1) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT CALIFORNIA LAWYERS GROUP, LLP TO PERMIT INSPECTION BY TIME

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL - CIVIL

11/19/2015: DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL - CIVIL

ORDER

11/19/2015: ORDER

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF DISMISSAL OF CROSS-DEFENDANT TIME WARNER CABLE INC.

12/1/2015: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF DISMISSAL OF CROSS-DEFENDANT TIME WARNER CABLE INC.

NOTICE OF COTNINUED HEARING ON MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

1/5/2016: NOTICE OF COTNINUED HEARING ON MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

12/29/2016: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

Unknown

1/17/2017: Unknown

DECLARATION OF PAUL N. TAUGER IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING THE COMPLETITTON OF THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA LAWYERS GROUP LLPS' PMK DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR S

6/28/2017: DECLARATION OF PAUL N. TAUGER IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING THE COMPLETITTON OF THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA LAWYERS GROUP LLPS' PMK DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR S

67 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/03/2016
  • Order (GRANTING DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINA NT CALIFORNIA LAWYERS GROUP, LLP'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS ) Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2016
  • Proof of Service Filed by Atty for Plaintiff and Cross-Deft

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2016
  • Notice of Ruling Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2016
  • Order (GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL-CIVIL ) Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/05/2016
  • Notice of Continuance Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2015
  • Memorandum - Other Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2015
  • Notice of Entry of Dismissal & P/S Filed by Attorney for Cross-Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2015
  • Request for Dismissal (W/P XD TIME WARNER CABLE INC. ) Filed by Attorney for Cross-Complainant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2015
  • Proof of Service Filed by Atty for Plaintiff and Cross-Deft

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2015
  • Declaration Filed by Atty for Plaintiff and Cross-Deft

    Read MoreRead Less
33 More Docket Entries
  • 03/17/2015
  • First Amended Complaint Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2015
  • Order (re Final Ruling 02/26/15 hearing. ) Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2015
  • Memorandum - Other Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2015
  • Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2015
  • Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/20/2015
  • Demurrer Filed by Atty for Plaintiff and Cross-Deft

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2014
  • Cross-complaint Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2014
  • Summons Filed Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2014
  • Notice-Case Management Conference Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/10/2014
  • Complaint Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC563358    Hearing Date: October 21, 2020    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

INFO TECH CORPORATION,

vs.

CALIFORNIA LAWYERS GROUP LLP, et al.

Case No.: BC563358

Hearing Date: October 21, 2020

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Info Tech Corporation’s motion to compel acknowledgement of satisfaction of judgment is denied. Info Tech’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.

Info Tech’s motions to compel CLG’s responses to judgment interrogatories and requests for inspection are denied as moot. Info Tech’s requests for monetary sanctions are denied.

A. Info Tech’s Motion to Compel Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment

Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Info Tech Corporation (“Info Tech”) moves to compel the acknowledgement of satisfaction of judgment by Defendant California Lawyers Group LLP (“CLG”). Specifically, Info Tech moves for an order deeming CLG’s award of damages and sanctions in the instant fully satisfied given they are fully off-set y Info Tech’s damages award against CLG. (Notice of Motion, pg. 1.) In addition, Info Tech requests an award of monetary sanctions in connection with bringing the instant motion.

On November 13, 2019, the Court entered judgment for Info Tech in the total amount of $59,588.36 and for CLG in the total amount of $9,660.80. (Decl. of Tauger, Exh. A.) On January 6, 2020, CLG filed a notice of appeal of the judgment which was dismissed on March 12, 2020, and which dismissal was vacated, and the notice of appeal reinstated on April 3, 2020. On March 12, 2020, the Court granted CLG’s motion to tax costs in the reduced amount of $9,922, thereby awarding Info Tech costs in the amount of $4,417.15, resulting in a total award of $64,005.51. (Decl. of Tauger, Exh. B.) The Court has awarded various CLG monetary sanctions against Info Tech in the total amount of $21,794.20, reflecting the sum of $13,069, $3,416.80, $2,988.40, and $2,320. (Decl. of Tauger, Exhs. C, D, E, F.) [The Court notes CLG contends the $2,988.40 sanctions award was awarded to CLG’s attorney Lee. (Opposition, pg. 4.)]

On September 22, 2020, a Return on Attachment/Execution was filed indicating no monies had been paid to satisfy the writ and that as of September 11, 2020, the remaining amount to satisfy the writ was $60,737.48 with $16.33 in daily interest.

C.C.P. §724.050(a)(1)-(2) provides as follows: “If a money judgment has been satisfied, the judgment debtor… may serve personally or by mail on the judgment creditor a demand in writing that the judgment creditor do one or both of the following: (1) File an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment with the court. (2) Execute, acknowledge, and deliver an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment to the person who made the demand.”

Info Tech submitted evidence its counsel Paul N. Tauger (“Tauger”) sent CLG’s counsel Maximilian Lee (“Lee”) a demand letter pursuant to C.C.P. §724.050 on February 26, 2020, in response to which Lee sent an email on February 26, 2020. (Decl. of Tauger ¶¶8-9, Exhs. G, H.) In addition to the statutory warning language of C.C.P. §724.050(b), the demand letter states in its entirety:

Pursuant to [C.C.P. §724.050 (a)], judgment debtor Info Tech Corporation demands that judgment creditor California Lawyers Group either file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment with the court, or execue, [sic] acknowledge and deliver and acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment to Info Tech Corporation, pursuant to Subsections (a) (1) and (2) of the statute.

(Decl. of Tauger, Exh. G.)

The Court notes the demand letter does not include any amounts Info Tech contends are offset by its judgment against CLG and does not indicate the amount of the judgment for which Info Tech seeks satisfaction; namely, whether CLG’s judgment includes its monetary sanctions awards.

Info Tech asserts it is entitled to an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment because CLG’s judgment in the instant matter, which Info Tech contends includes both the $9,660.80 awarded to CLG on its cross-complaint and the $21,794.20 awarded to CLG in sanctions, for a total of $31,455, is offset by Info Tech’s total award. (Motion, pg. 5.) Info Tech contends CLG’s judgment is offset by Info Tech’s total award of $69,510.36, leaving CLG owing Info Tech $38,055.36. (Motion, pg. 5.) However, the total award figure is unsupported; it is unclear how Info Tech arrived at the $69,510.36 amount, when as discussed above, it appears Info Tech is entitled to $64,005.51.

Info Tech is not entitled to an order compelling acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment at this time. While Info Tech may be entitled to an order compelling acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment in connection with CLG’s $9,660.80 judgment on its cross-complaint, Info Tech’s request that the awarded monetary sanctions be included in the judgment is unsupported. Moreover, Info Tech fails to address the fact that the $2,988.40 monetary sanctions award was awarded to Lee individually, and not CLG, and as such a Info Tech’s judgment against CLG would not offset this amount. (Decl. of Tauger, Exh. E.)

The Court notes CLG’s argument Info Tech did not comply with the statutory requirements of C.C.P. §724.050(a)(1)-(2) given the demand letter was served on CLG’s counsel not on CLG. (Decl. of Lee ¶2.) However, CLG cites to no authority suggesting service on counsel does not satisfy the purpose of service on the creditor under C.C.P. §724.050 and no evidence suggests CLG has been prejudiced by service of the demand letter on its counsel. As such, this argument is without merit. CLG’s argument Info Tech lacks standing to bring the instant motion as a suspended corporation is without merit; the Court has previously found Info Tech has capacity to enforce its award. (Reply, pgs. 2-3.) CLG’s argument that the demand letter fails to comply with C.C.P. §724.050 given it was served via email as opposed to by mail or in person is without merit given the parties’ agreement to service by email pursuant to C.C.P. §1010.6(a), (2)(A)(i). (Reply, pg. 3.)

Based on the foregoing, Info Tech’s motion for acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment is denied.

Info Tech’s request for monetary sanctions in connection with bringing the instant motion is denied. Info Tech’s request is not supported by statute.

B. Info Tech’s Motions to Compel CLG’s Responses to Judgment Requests for Inspection and Interrogatories

Two post-judgment discovery motions are presently before the Court. Info Tech moves for orders compelling CLG to provide responses to its Judgment Requests for Inspection (Nos. 1-17) and Judgment Interrogatories (Nos. 1-10). (Notices of Motions, pgs. 1-2.) In connection with each of the motions, Info Tech requests the Court impose sanctions on CLG and its counsel in the amount of $6,770, for a total amount of $13,540. (Motions, pg. 6.)

C.C.P. §708.030(a) provides, as follows: “The judgment creditor may demand that any judgment debtor produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on that party’s behalf, to inspect and to copy a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made in the manner provided in Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 2031.010) of Title 4 of Part 4, if the demand requests information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment. The judgment debtor shall respond and comply with the demand in the manner and within the time provided by Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 2031.010) of Title 4 of Part 4.”

C.C.P. §708.030(c) provides, as follows: “Inspection demands served pursuant to this section may be enforced to the extent practicable, in the same manner as inspection demands in a civil action.”

Pursuant to C.C.P. §2031.300(b), “[i]f a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, ….[t]he party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.”

Info Tech’s motions to compel responses are moot. CLG served its verified responses to the discovery requests on Info Tech on September 29, 2020, prior to the hearing on the instant motions. (Decl. of Lee ¶3.) In addition, CLG submitted evidence Info Tech failed to properly serve the discovery requests on CLG until August 21, 2020. (Decl. of Lee ¶2.) Moreover, CLG submitted evidence the proofs of service indicating Info Tech served the discovery requests on CLG are defective given the proofs of service indicate service on Amy Cohen at 10960 Wilshire Blvd St. 1225, Los Angeles CA on May 7, 2020; however, CLG shares this office space with two separate companies and CLG has never employed anyone by the name of Amy Cohen and CLG’s staff has not worked at the office since March 2020. (Decl. of Brown ¶¶2-5.) As of the date of this hearing, Info Tech has not filed a reply to address CLG’s arguments in opposition.

Based on the foregoing, Info Tech’s motions to compel responses are denied as moot.

Info Tech’s requests for monetary sanctions in connection with the motions are denied. Info Tech failed to include its request for sanctions in the Notices of Motion and the Court otherwise finds Info Tech is not entitled to sanctions.

Dated: October _____, 2020

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where INFO TECH CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases where CALIFORNIA LAWYERS GROUP LLP is a litigant

Latest cases where TIME WARNER CABLE INC is a litigant