This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/02/2019 at 00:13:39 (UTC).

JOEL ROTHSCHILD ET AL VS THE DESMOND CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS

Case Summary

On 12/22/2016 JOEL ROTHSCHILD filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against THE DESMOND CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4780

  • Filing Date:

    12/22/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

JOEL M. ROTHSCHILD LIVING TRUST

ROTHSCHILD JOEL

Defendants and Respondents

HOLLAND JESSE

DALY BRIAN

ROBERTSON SCOTT

HARRIS CHRIS

ODEN CHRIS

JONES ADAM

DESMOND CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIA-

JONES ADAM C.P.A.

BLACKSTONE BUILDERS INC.

SEARS TEDDY

HOA ORGANIZERS INC.

MARK H. SAVEL ARCHITECTS INC.

SAVEL MARK H.

DESMOND CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION

GARCIA ANTHONY

SEARS KENNY

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

BLACKSTONE BUILDERS INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

NORRIS MATTHEW J. ESQ.

WATERKOTTE GRANT

Defendant Attorneys

MORRISON EDWARD F JR

REAGAN BARRY JAMES

MEYER JASON FREDERICK

KENNEDY KEVIN PETER

EVERETT SEYMOUR BERNARD III

 

Court Documents

DEFENDANT HOA ORGANIZERS, INC. NOTICE OF JOINDER TO DEFENDANT DESMOND HOA?S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

3/19/2018: DEFENDANT HOA ORGANIZERS, INC. NOTICE OF JOINDER TO DEFENDANT DESMOND HOA?S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

DEFENDANTS MARK H. SAVEL ARCHITECTS, INC. AND MARK H. SAVEL DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF JOEL ROTHSCHILD; ETC.

4/11/2018: DEFENDANTS MARK H. SAVEL ARCHITECTS, INC. AND MARK H. SAVEL DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF JOEL ROTHSCHILD; ETC.

DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF JOEL ROTHSCHILD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

5/10/2018: DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF JOEL ROTHSCHILD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

DECLARATION OF TINA FANELLI-MORACCINI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

5/10/2018: DECLARATION OF TINA FANELLI-MORACCINI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

DEFENDANTS' EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

5/16/2018: DEFENDANTS' EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF ERRATA TO DEFENDANT HOA ORCANIZERS, INC.'S NOTICE OF JOINDER TO THE DESMONI) CONDIMINIUM'S REPLY TO TILE SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

5/18/2018: NOTICE OF ERRATA TO DEFENDANT HOA ORCANIZERS, INC.'S NOTICE OF JOINDER TO THE DESMONI) CONDIMINIUM'S REPLY TO TILE SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE

SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

5/23/2018: SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT HOA ORGANIZERS, INC.'S NOTICE OF JOINDER TO DEFENDANT DESMOND HOA'S DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

6/4/2018: DEFENDANT HOA ORGANIZERS, INC.'S NOTICE OF JOINDER TO DEFENDANT DESMOND HOA'S DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Proof of Service by Mail

2/1/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. VIOLATIONS OF DAVIS-STIRLING ACT; ETC.

3/10/2017: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. VIOLATIONS OF DAVIS-STIRLING ACT; ETC.

Unknown

4/6/2017: Unknown

Proof of Service

4/11/2017: Proof of Service

DECLARATION OF JOEL ROTHSCHILD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR: TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

4/17/2017: DECLARATION OF JOEL ROTHSCHILD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR: TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Unknown

4/18/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

4/18/2017: Minute Order

DECLARATION OF MARK H. SAVEL IN SUPPORT OF BRIEF OF SPECIALLY APPEARING PARTIES MARK H. SAVEL ARCHITECTS, INC. AND MARK H. SAVEL WITH RESPECT TO ARBITRATION

5/1/2017: DECLARATION OF MARK H. SAVEL IN SUPPORT OF BRIEF OF SPECIALLY APPEARING PARTIES MARK H. SAVEL ARCHITECTS, INC. AND MARK H. SAVEL WITH RESPECT TO ARBITRATION

DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ETC

5/9/2017: DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ETC

DEFENDANT HOA ORGANIZERS, INC.'S JOINDER TO DEFENDANTS THE DESMOND CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, CHRIS ODEN, CHRIS HARRIS, ANTHONY GARCIA, SCOTT ROBERTSON, JESSE HOLLAND AND ADAM JONES RENEWED

12/4/2017: DEFENDANT HOA ORGANIZERS, INC.'S JOINDER TO DEFENDANTS THE DESMOND CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, CHRIS ODEN, CHRIS HARRIS, ANTHONY GARCIA, SCOTT ROBERTSON, JESSE HOLLAND AND ADAM JONES RENEWED

187 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/24/2019
  • Motion for Leave (to File Fourth Amended Complaint); Filed by Joel Rothschild (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2019
  • Memorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by Joel Rothschild (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2019
  • Declaration (of Justin R. Felton in Support of Plaintiff Joel Rothschild's Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint); Filed by Joel Rothschild (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 73; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 73; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 73; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • Notice ( of Trial Continuance); Filed by Joel M. Rothschild Living Trust (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2019
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Joel Rothschild (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 73; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Joel Rothschild (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
462 More Docket Entries
  • 02/06/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Joel Rothschild (Plaintiff); Joel M. Rothschild Living Trust (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Joel Rothschild (Plaintiff); Joel M. Rothschild Living Trust (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Joel Rothschild (Plaintiff); Joel M. Rothschild Living Trust (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Joel Rothschild (Plaintiff); Joel M. Rothschild Living Trust (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. VIOLATIONS OF DAVIS-STIRLING ACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC644780    Hearing Date: July 23, 2020    Dept: 73

7/23/2020

Dept. 73

Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding

JOEL ROTHSCHILD v. THE DESMOND CONDOMINIUM, et al. (BC644780)

Counsel for Plaintiff/opposing party: Grant Waterkotte, Justin Felton (Petit Kohn, etc.)

Counsel for Defendants/moving parties The Desmond Condominium Homeowners’ Association and individual Board defendants (6): Jason Meyer, Andre Picciurro, Daniel Quon (Gorden Rees, etc.)

Other parties and counsel: Omitted.

DeFENDANTS’ (Desmond, et al.) motion for summary adjudication (filed 02/07/2020)

TENTATIVE RULING

None at this time. Hear argument. The court intends to take the matter under submission.

Evidentiary rulings

Opposition Objections: The court overrules objection nos. 1-5.

Opposition Separate Statement Objections: The court overrules objection to DUF nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10-12, 14-26. The court sustains objection to DUF nos. 3 as to “forced to prioritize,” 6 and 8.

Reply Objections:

· Joel Rothschild Decl:

o Sustain: 1, 6, 7, 13, 17 only as to the use of the word “material”, 18

o Overrule: 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19

· Michael Vettoretto Decl.:

o Sustain: 1

o Overrule: 2, 3

· Joe Everett Michaels Decl.:

o Sustain: 1, 5 as to the use of the work “actively” only,

o Overrule: 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

· Fanelli-Moranccini Decl.:

o Sustain: 2

o Overrule: 1

· Nina Hickox

o Sustain: 6 as to the word “intentionally” only, 7, 11, 13, 14

o Overrule: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12

Reply RJN: The court grants the request for judicial notice of the recorded restated declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions.

Case Number: BC644780    Hearing Date: July 08, 2020    Dept: 73

07/08/2020

Dept. 73

Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding

Rothschild, etc. vs. The Desmond, etc., et al. (BC644780)

Counsel for cross-complainant/moving party Desmond, etc.: John R. Yates

Motion by Desmond for Leave to File Cross-Complaint (filed 04/02/2020)

TENTATIVE RULING

The court grants the unopposed motion. CCP § 426.50

The proposed cross-complaint attached to the motion is deemed filed and served on all previously served and appearing parties as indicated on the proof of service of the motion. However, moving party is ordered to file a stand-alone cross-complaint. Cross-defendant Joel Rothschild’s responsive pleading shall be filed and served no later than 15 days from this date.

Notice of ruling by moving party.

Case Number: BC644780    Hearing Date: February 04, 2020    Dept: 73

2/4/20

Dept. 73

Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding

Rothschild, etc. vs. The Desmond, etc., et al. (BC644780)

MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO INSPECTORS OF ELECTION LLC OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER (filed 10/4/19)

Moving parties: Defendants The Desmond Condominium Homeowners Association, Chris Oden, Chris Harris, Anthony Garcia, Scott Robertson, Jesse Holland, and Adam Jones

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s unopposed motion to quash Plaintiff’s deposition subpoena is GRANTED.

Discussion

Defendants Desmond and Board move for an order quashing the subpoena or, alternatively, limiting the deposition subpoena for production of business records that Plaintiff served on Inspectors of Election LLC. The motion is unopposed.

ANALYSIS

When a subpoena has been issued requiring the attendance of a witness or the production of documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion “reasonably made” by the party, the witness, or any consumer whose personal records are sought, or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms and conditions as the court may specify. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1; Southern Pac. Co. v. Superior Court (1940) 15 Cal.2d 206.)

For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.) Generally, all unprivileged information that is relevant to the subject matter of the action is discoverable if it would itself be admissible evidence at trial or if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010; Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 711.)

When the information sought to be discovered impacts a person’s constitutional right to privacy, limited protections come into play for that person. (Shaffer v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 993, 999.) The protections cover both a person’s personal and financial matters. (Ibid.) The court must balance competing rights—the right of a litigant to discover relevant facts and the right of an individual to maintain reasonable privacy—in determining whether the information is discoverable. (Ibid.)

Here, Plaintiff’s subpoena seeks all documents from Inspectors of Election LLC related to the Desmond’s August 30, 2019 election, including: (1) outer envelopes; (2) contents of voting envelopes; and (3) documents provided to homeowners regarding the election. (See Zorik Haruthunian Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, Ex. A.)

Defendants demonstrate grounds exist to quash the subpoena. First, Defendants present evidence that no election occurred on August 30, 2019. (See Chris Harris Decl., ¶ 3.) As drafted, the subpoena will unlikely lead to any responsive documents.

Second, even if the subpoena is construed to mean the Board’s August 26, 2019 secret ballot vote to modify and amend the Desmond’s governing documents (see Harris Decl., ¶ 4), that vote occurred after Plaintiff filed his operative Fourth Amended Complaint. Defendants also represent that the amendments to the governing documents do not apply retroactively. (See ibid.) Based on Defendants’ arguments, the August 26, 2019 secret ballot is not relevant to Plaintiff’s case.

Third, the documents sought in the subpoena raise constitutional privacy issues, as well as may violate the confidentiality of secret ballot elections to amend governing documents, per Davis-Sterling Act, i.e., Civil Code sections 5100(a)(1) and 5115(c). As Defendants point out, Plaintiff’s request for outer envelopes, will uncover Board member names and identifying information. Because Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, there is no basis to find that Plaintiff’s rights to discover the information overcomes any privacy or confidentiality interest of the Board members and/or is not violative of the Davis-Sterling Act.

Fourth, Defendant presents evidence that the Desmond provided and/or made accessible voting materials regarding the election (because all unit owners were able to participate in the secret ballot election) and that an informational session occurred on July 23, 2019. (See Harris Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendants also present evidence that, on August 29, 2019, Inspectors of Election LLC mailed all unit owners a summary report of the secret ballot and provided the amended and restated bylaws. (See id., ¶ 6, Ex. A.)

Defendant’s unopposed motion to quash Plaintiff’s deposition subpoena is GRANTED.Notice of ruling by moving parties.