Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/07/2019 at 13:00:33 (UTC).

JOSIE HARRIS VS FLOYD MAYWEATHER JR.

Case Summary

On 05/05/2015 JOSIE HARRIS filed a Personal Injury - Assault/Battery/Defamation lawsuit against FLOYD MAYWEATHER JR. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Chatsworth Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MELVIN D. SANDVIG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6372

  • Filing Date:

    05/05/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Assault/Battery/Defamation

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Chatsworth Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MELVIN D. SANDVIG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

HARRIS JOSIE

Defendant

MAYWEATHER JR. FLOYD

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL FRIEDLANDER

Defendant Attorney

EDWARDS RICK

 

Court Documents

Notice

5/5/2015: Notice

Civil Case Cover Sheet

5/5/2015: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Legacy Document

7/6/2015: Legacy Document

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

8/4/2015: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Legacy Document

8/4/2015: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

9/16/2015: Legacy Document

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

9/18/2015: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Minute Order

9/23/2015: Minute Order

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

12/21/2015: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

5/4/2016: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Legacy Document

5/4/2016: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

5/9/2016: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

5/9/2016: Legacy Document

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

11/10/2016: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Case Management Statement

9/14/2018: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

9/18/2018: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

9/20/2018: Minute Order

Case Management Statement

3/18/2019: Case Management Statement

46 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/27/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2019
  • Minute Order ( (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by JOSIE HARRIS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by FLOYD MAYWEATHER JR. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2019
  • Answer; Filed by FLOYD MAYWEATHER JR. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • Minute Order ((TRIAL SETTTING CONFERENCE)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2018
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by FLOYD MAYWEATHER JR. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
52 More Docket Entries
  • 08/04/2015
  • Miscellaneous-Other; Filed by FLOYD MAYWEATHER JR. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2015
  • Miscellaneous-Other; Filed by FLOYD MAYWEATHER JR. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2015
  • Declaration; Filed by FLOYD MAYWEATHER JR. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2015
  • Motion to Strike; Filed by FLOYD MAYWEATHER JR. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2015
  • Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt; Filed by JOSIE HARRIS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2015
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by JOSIE HARRIS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2015
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2015
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by JOSIE HARRIS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2015
  • Notice (of All Purpose Case Assignment and Notice of Case Management Conference); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/05/2015
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: PC056372    Hearing Date: January 20, 2021    Dept: F47

Dept. F-47

Date: 1/20/21

Case #PC056372

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Requests for Admissions & Form Interrogatories)

Motion filed on 7/2/20.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Floyd Mayweather, Jr.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Josie Harris

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Plaintiff to serve further responses to Requests for Admissions, Set 1, and Form Interrogatories, Set 1. Additionally, Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $9,060.00.

RULING: The action is dismissed and the motion is placed off calendar as moot.

This defamation action arises from an interview Defendant did with Katie Couric wherein he stated he had to restrain Plaintiff because she was on drugs. This motion, which was originally heard on 9/22/20, seeks further responses to certain Requests for Admissions and Form Interrogatories served on 9/20/18 to which Plaintiff served responses on 12/21/18.

As noted in the 9/22/20 Minute Order, Plaintiff’s attorney, Daniel A. Friedlander, filed a declaration indicating that Plaintiff died on 3/10/20. (Friedlander Decl. ¶2). Plaintiff was unmarried and survived by two adult sons and a minor daughter. (Id. at ¶3). Mr. Friedlander further stated that the status of Plaintiff’s estate remained unresolved and Plaintiff’s children had advised that they do not wish to pursue this action if they are appointed as estate representative. (Id. at ¶¶4-6). Mr. Friedlander stated that he is effectively without a client or a client representative. (Id. at ¶7). Additionally, the opposition to the motion indicated that once the estate issues were resolved, a dismissal of this action would likely to result. (See Opp. p.6:19-20).

The reply stated “[t]he bottom line to move forward may be that Defendant, who has an attorney’s fees claim relative to the anti-SLAPP motion, must either initiate probate proceedings as a creditor so that an administrator can assume Plaintiff’s position or move the Court for a dismissal when the applicable time arises.” (See Reply p.1:26-p.2:1).

In its 9/22/20 Minute Order, the Court noted that CCP 377.31 provides:

On motion after the death of a person who commenced an action or proceeding, the court shall allow a pending action or proceeding that does not abate to be continued by the decedent’s personal representative or, if none, by the decedent’s successor in interest.

The Court further noted that the statute is silent as to who may move for such relief and, therefore, apparently, such a motion can be made by any party to the proceeding or by the representative or successor in interest. Additionally, the Court noted that unless the decedent’s personal representative is made a party, a judgment should not be rendered for or against a decedent, or for or against the representative. See Sacks (1992) 7 CA4th 950, 957; Sellery (1996) 48 CA4th 538, 541.

Based on the foregoing, the Court continued the hearing on the motion to 1/20/21 and stated that either party may move to have the action continued by the decedent’s personal representative or, if none, by the decedent’s successor in interest. The Court further stated that if neither party made such a motion and/or Plaintiff’s counsel failed to show why the action should proceed, the action would be dismissed.

Nothing has been filed since the 9/22/20 hearing indicating that either party has moved to have this action continued by the decedent’s personal representative or by the decedent’s successor in interest. Similarly, Plaintiff’s counsel has not filed anything to indicate why the action should proceed. Therefore, the action is dismissed and the motion is placed off calendar as moot.

Case Number: PC056372    Hearing Date: September 22, 2020    Dept: F47

Dept. F-47

Date: 9/22/20

Case #PC056372

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Requests for Admissions & Form Interrogatories)

Motion filed on 7/2/20.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Floyd Mayweather, Jr.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Josie Harris

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Plaintiff to serve further responses to Requests for Admissions, Set 1, and Form Interrogatories, Set 1. Additionally, Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $9,060.00.

RULING:

This defamation action arises from an interview Defendant did with Katie Couric wherein he stated he had to restrain Plaintiff because she was on drugs. By way of the instant motion, Defendant seeks further responses to certain Requests for Admissions and Form Interrogatories served on 9/20/18 to which Plaintiff served responses on 12/21/18.

Pursuant to the declaration of Plaintiff’s attorney, Daniel A. Friedlander, Plaintiff died on 3/10/20. (Friedlander Decl. ¶2). Plaintiff was unmarried and survived by two adult sons and a minor daughter. (Id. at ¶3). Mr. Friedlander further states that the status of Plaintiff’s estate remains unresolved and Plaintiff’s children have advised that they do not wish to pursue this action if they are appointed as estate representative. (Id. at ¶¶4-6). Mr. Friedlander states that he is effectively without a client or a client representative. (Id. at ¶7). Additionally, the opposition indicates that once the estate issues are resolved, a dismissal of this action is likely to result. (See Opp. p.6:19-20).

The reply states “[t]he bottom line to move forward may be that Defendant, who has an attorney’s fees claim relative to the anti-SLAPP motion, must either initiate probate proceedings as a creditor so that an administrator can assume Plaintiff’s position or move the Court for a dismissal when the applicable time arises.” (See Reply p.1:26-p.2:1).

CCP 377.31 provides:

On motion after the death of a person who commenced an action or proceeding, the court shall allow a pending action or proceeding that does not abate to be continued by the decedent’s personal representative or, if none, by the decedent’s successor in interest.

The statute is silent as to who may move for such relief; therefore, apparently, the motion can be made by any party to the proceeding or by the representative or successor in interest. Additionally, unless the decedent’s personal representative is made a party, a judgment should not be rendered for or against a decedent, or for or against the representative. See Sacks (1992) 7 CA4th 950, 957; Sellery (1996) 48 CA4th 538, 541.

Based on the foregoing, the hearing on this motion will be continued for approximately 90 days. During that time, either party may move to have the action continued by the decedent’s personal representative or, if none, by the decedent’s successor in interest. If neither party makes such a motion and/or Plaintiff’s counsel fails to show why the action should proceed, the action will be dismissed.