Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/09/2019 at 21:53:36 (UTC).

ISAACMAN, KAUFMAN & PAINTER VS JAY STEIN

Case Summary

On 03/05/2015 ISAACMAN, KAUFMAN PAINTER filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against JAY STEIN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is NANCY L. NEWMAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3869

  • Filing Date:

    03/05/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

NANCY L. NEWMAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

ISAACMAN KAUFMAN & PAINTER

KAUFMAN ISAACMAN

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

STEIN JAY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

BLACKMAN STEVEN H.

EMANUEL SACHA V.

ISAACMAN KAUFMAN & PAINTER

Defendant Attorneys

HOM TRACEY P.

HOM TRACEY PASSWATERS

 

Court Documents

Cross-Complaint

5/24/2016: Cross-Complaint

Case Management Statement

6/23/2016: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

7/5/2016: Minute Order

Legacy Document

7/26/2016: Legacy Document

Minute Order

8/2/2016: Minute Order

Minute Order

8/8/2016: Minute Order

Cross-Complaint

9/2/2016: Cross-Complaint

Legacy Document

11/4/2016: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

11/10/2016: Legacy Document

Minute Order

11/28/2016: Minute Order

Minute Order

12/15/2017: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

8/20/2018: Notice of Ruling

Opposition

3/13/2019: Opposition

Witness List

3/18/2019: Witness List

Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

3/19/2019: Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

Opposition

3/20/2019: Opposition

Opposition

3/21/2019: Opposition

Minute Order

6/14/2019: Minute Order

63 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/27/2019
  • Motion in Limine (TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE REGARDING: (A) MATTERS TO WHICH DEFENDANT REFUSED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AT DEPOSITION; AND (B) MATTERS THE DEFENSE TO WHICH WOULD REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO REVEAL PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN); Filed by Isaacman, Kaufman, & Painter (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2019
  • Declaration (IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1); Filed by Isaacman, Kaufman, & Painter (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department P; (Trial) - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department P; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • Declaration (of Sacha V Emanuel re Mediation); Filed by Isaacman, Kaufman, & Painter (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department P; (Trial) - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department P; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department P; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to Continue Trial Date and Final Status Conference) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
140 More Docket Entries
  • 05/28/2015
  • NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE CONTD TO 7-7-15 8:30 AM DEPT P ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Isaacman, Kaufman, & Painter (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2015
  • Demurrer; Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2015
  • Demurrer; Filed by Jay Stein (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2015
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Isaacman, Kaufman, & Painter (Plaintiff); Isaacman Kaufman (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2015
  • Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2015
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2015
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC123869    Hearing Date: March 16, 2021    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Isaacman, Kaufman & Painter v. Stein, Case No. SC123869

Hearing Date March 16, 2021

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Declaration of Gil Miguel

This case was tried in February 2020. On January 7, 2021 the court posted a proposed statement of decision and held a hearing regarding issues still in dispute. Thereafter, the court ordered the parties to file briefs clarifying where, in the trial testimony, plaintiff established that defendant owes $24,134 due to improper rent credits.

Defendant argues plaintiff violated the court order by including new evidence via a declaration from Gil Miguel, who testified as IKP’s PMQ as to accounting and damages. Defendant seeks to strike the declaration as new evidence, violative of the court’s order. Defendant also argues Miguel lacks personal knowledge of the matters stated.

Under California Evidence Code §702, a witness must testify based on “personal knowledge of the matter.” Cal. Evid. Code §702. Defendant argues the Miguel declaration is outside the scope of the court’s 1/7/2021 minute order and inadmissible for lack of personal knowledge. Plaintiff argues the Miguel declaration contains no new information and is merely a restatement of his testimony at trial.

The court’s order stated “parties may each file (5) page max briefs as to the source of the $24,134 and direct the court to the testimony in the record regarding that.” Minute Order, 1/7/2021. The order did not contemplate nor permit filing of new evidence or declarations. Even if it merely restates trial testimony, this declaration is clearly improper and unabashedly exceeds the scope of the court’s order. The parties were ordered to refer to trial testimony, not to submit additional evidence. GRANTED. The court will entertain discussion from defense counsel about sanctions/fees for having to bring this motion.

DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR VIA LA COURT CONNECT.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where ISAACMAN KAUFMAN & PAINTER is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer TRACEY P. HOM ESQ.