Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/11/2019 at 00:44:19 (UTC).

LOUIS MAYORGA VS LISA FANCHER

Case Summary

On 12/08/2016 LOUIS MAYORGA filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against LISA FANCHER. 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:

    ****3234

  • Filing Date:

    12/08/2016

  • 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

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

MAYORGA LOUIS

MAYORGA LOUICHI

MAYORGA LOUIS AKA LOUICHI MAYORGA

Defendants and Respondents

DOE 1 THROUGH DOE 20

FRONTIER RECORDS AND AMERICAN LESION

FANCHER LISA

FANCHER LISA DBA FRONTIER RECORDS AND AMERICAN LESION MUSIC

BMG RIGHTS MANAGEMENT U.S. LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

HIRSCH BRIDGET B.

COHEN EVAN SETH ESQ.

MARTORELL EDUARDO

Defendant Attorneys

ACKERMAN MICHAEL B

BJORGUM A ERIC

PINK JONATHAN S

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

1/25/2018: Minute Order

PLAINTIFF MAYORGA'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND THE FEBRUARY 16, 2018 HEARINGS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF EDUARDO MARTORELL

2/8/2018: PLAINTIFF MAYORGA'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND THE FEBRUARY 16, 2018 HEARINGS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF EDUARDO MARTORELL

PROOF OF SERVICE

2/13/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT'S DEMANDS FOR PRODUCTION AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

2/13/2018: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT'S DEMANDS FOR PRODUCTION AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Minute Order

9/13/2018: Minute Order

DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED SHORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE

9/25/2018: DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED SHORT STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Motion in Limine

3/19/2019: Motion in Limine

Motion in Limine

3/19/2019: Motion in Limine

Ex Parte Application

4/4/2019: Ex Parte Application

Declaration

4/11/2019: Declaration

Jury Instructions

4/17/2019: Jury Instructions

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

12/16/2016: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFANDANT TO ANSWER COMPLAINT

1/30/2017: JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFANDANT TO ANSWER COMPLAINT

DEFENDANT LISA FANCHER'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF LOUIS MAYORGA'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL B. ACKERMAN; EXHIBITS

5/22/2017: DEFENDANT LISA FANCHER'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF LOUIS MAYORGA'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL B. ACKERMAN; EXHIBITS

DEFENDANT LISA FANCHER'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF LOUIS MAYORGA'S MOTION TO COMPEL; ETC

6/12/2017: DEFENDANT LISA FANCHER'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF LOUIS MAYORGA'S MOTION TO COMPEL; ETC

Unknown

6/30/2017: Unknown

STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE AND ORDER THEREUPON

8/8/2017: STIPULATION RE CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE AND ORDER THEREUPON

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO USE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER

10/11/2017: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO USE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER

137 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/24/2019
  • Memorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by Lisa Fancher (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2019
  • Declaration (of Michael Ackerman in Support of Defendant Lisa Fancher's Motion for Order); Filed by Lisa Fancher (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2019
  • Motion for Order (Granting Defendant's Request for Separate Trial on Liability Prior to Trial on Damages); Filed by Lisa Fancher (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • Notice (of Ruling re: Final Status Conference); Filed by Louis Mayorga (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 49; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (To Continue Trial 40319sfinal (c/f 4-5 per m.o. of 4-4-19)) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 49; Final Status Conference ((c/f 4-4)) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 49; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Jury Trial; Final Status Conference (c/f 4-4); Hearing on Ex ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • Jury Instructions; Filed by Louis Mayorga (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • Statement of the Case; Filed by Lisa Fancher (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
244 More Docket Entries
  • 12/30/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2016
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2016
  • OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2016
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by Louis Mayorga (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2016
  • COMPLAINT FOR: (A) BREACH OF CONTRACT; AND (B) AN ACCOUNTING

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC643234    Hearing Date: December 07, 2020    Dept: 49

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Louis Mayorga,

Plaintiff,

Case No.

BC643234

v.

[Tentative] Ruling

Lisa Fancher,

Defendant.

Hearing Date: December 7, 2020

Department 49, Judge Stuart M. Rice

(1) Defendant’s Motion for Stay of Enforcement of Preliminary Injunction

Moving Party: Defendant Lisa Fancher

Responding Party: Plaintiff Louis Mayorga

Ruling: Defendant’s motion for stay of enforcement of the preliminary injunction is denied.

Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 916(a),

[e]xcept as provided in Sections 917.1 to 917.9, inclusive, and in Section 116.810, the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order.

Defendant contends that as the Court’s August 13, 2019 injunction was mandatory, as opposed to prohibitory, enforcement of the injunction must be stayed concurrently with this action as result of Defendant’s September 10, 2019, appeal. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the injunction is prohibitory, and not mandatory, and in the absence of a court order, there is no stay pending appeal.

“An appeal stays a mandatory but not a prohibitory injunction. This rule is clear, but whether a decree is one or the other may be difficult to determine in some situations since an order entirely negative or prohibitory in form may prove upon analysis to be mandatory and affirmative in essence and effect. Also the decree may partake of a dual nature, in which event an appeal will stay operation of the mandatory features but not of the prohibitory.” (Kettenhofen v. Superior Court In & For Marin Cty. (1961) 55 Cal. 2d 189, 191.)

“The substance of the injunction, not the form, determines whether it is mandatory or prohibitory” for purposes of applying the stay. (Davenport v. Blue Cross of California (1997) 52 Cal. App. 4th 435, 447.) “An order enjoining action by a party is prohibitory in nature if its effect is to leave the parties in the same position as they were prior to the entry of the judgment. On the other hand, it is mandatory in effect if its enforcement would be to change the position of the parties and compel them to act in accordance with the judgment rendered.” (Musicians Club of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1958) 165 Cal. App. 2d 67, 71.)

On August 13, 2019, the Court heard Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction requesting an order enjoining Defendant from denying an audit pursuant to Civil Code § 2501. The Court found that factors weighed in favor of granting Plaintiff’s motion and ordered as follows: “[t]he status quo is preserved by allowing plaintiff to enforce his statutory rights. Defendant is ordered to allow plaintiff to conduct the audit to which he is entitled under Civil Code section 2501 prior to September 7, 2019 or a later date if agreed to by plaintiff.” (8/13/19 Ruling p. 3.)

The subject injunction is prohibitory in nature. Specifically, this injunction was issued to prohibit Defendant from improperly denying Plaintiff his statutory right to audit. Defendant argues that “[t]he Court’s August 13, 2019 Order appears to implicitly concede the injunction is mandatory: ‘The status quo is preserved by allowing plaintiff to enforce his statutory rights.’ The statement ironically concedes that the status quo is not preserved by the injunction. By definition, a status quo is an existing state of affairs.” (Motion 6:4-7.)

The Court’s statement was not ironic. The status quo was preserved by prohibiting Defendant from denying Plaintiff his statutory rights. The status quo for the parties was that Plaintiff and Defendant were entitled all rights conferred to them by statute; by improperly denying Plaintiff his right to audit under Civil Code § 2501, Defendant was altering the status quo. The Court is not compelling the parties to affirmatively act in a certain way, but rather to restrain Defendant from interfering with an established right.

In conducting an analysis into whether an injunction was mandatory or prohibitory in nature, the Supreme Court of California recognized that “[w]hile an injunction is issued primarily to restrain and not to compel an act, defendant may be required to do some affirmative act necessary to effectuate the principal purpose of the order.” (United Railroads of San Francisco v. Superior Court in & for City & Cty. of San Francisco (1916) 172 Cal. 80, 89.)

Defendant’s assertion that the injunction “clearly imposes upon Defendant the requirement to act affirmatively and to surrender a position she holds and is entitled to hold based upon the facts she alleges” is unavailing. (Reply 4:4-6.) Defendant argues that “[p]roviding Plaintiff with detailed financial access and information such as to revenues, expenses, and profits over decades clearly imposes a significant burden and affirmative obligations upon Defendant” (Id. 4:8-9.). This is an overstatement of what Civil Code Section 2501 affords to Plaintiff as a royalty recipient. Defendant’s language betrays the fact she is simply being required to “provide Plaintiff with detailed access” to his own royalty information. (Id.) Pursuant to Civil Code § 2501, Plaintiff was entitled to conduct an audit; this was the status quo prior to Defendant’s denial of his right thereto.

As “[i]t is well settled that a prohibitory injunction is not stayed by an appeal therefrom while an injunction mandatory in character is automatically stayed by appeal,” Defendant’s motion fails. (Byington v. Superior Court of Stanislaus Cty. (1939) 14 Cal. 2d 68, 70.)

The motion for a stay of enforcement of the preliminary injunction is denied.

Date: December 7, 2020

Honorable Stuart M. Rice

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where BMG Rights Management (UK) Limited is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer HIRSCH BRIDGET