On 04/19/2016 LUCAS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against TAKASHI NAKAMURA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK
LUCAS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION INC.
ELLIS RONALD D.
HALL LAURENCE CHARLES
WEIL JEAN A. ESQ.
ALEXANDER STEVEN KEN
HARTWICK JEFFREY A.
1/8/2018: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER FILED BY DEFENDANT KUNIHIRO NISHIYA, ENGINEER; ETC
1/19/2018: Minute Order
1/19/2018: RULING (1) DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; (2) MOTION TO STRIKE RE: SECOND AMENDED COMLAINT
2/1/2018: NOTICE OF FILING OFFER OF PROOF: DECLARATION OF RONALD D. ELLIS SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF'S OFFER OF PROOF RE FRAUD (CONCEALMENT) OF DEFENDANT KUNIHIRO NAKAMURA; CAUSE OF ACTION: FRAUD (CONCEALMENT) CIV. C
2/13/2018: DEFENDANT KUNIHIRO NISHIYA'S OBJECTIONS TO AND REQUEST TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE DECLARATION OF RONALD ELLIS DATED JANUARY 31, 2018 SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO ADD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT
2/13/2018: DECLARATION OF RONALD D. ELLIS SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ARCHITECT'S DEMURRER TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
2/20/2018: FINAL RULING
2/20/2018: Minute Order
3/1/2018: Minute Order
3/13/2018: JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT KUNIHIRO NISHIYA
7/9/2018: Minute Order
7/18/2018: LUCAS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST TAKASIU NAKAMURA AND TOSHIKO NAKAMURA FOR VIOLATING THE COURT'S JUNE 28, 2018 COURT ORDER AND; ETC.
8/6/2018: LUCAS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC.'S REPLY TO THE NAKAMURAS' OPPOSITION (DECLARATION OF STEVEN K. ALEXANDER IN OPPOSITION TO (1) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND (2) MOTION TO COMPEL INSPECTION)TO, ETC
7/15/2016: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR FORECLOSURE OF MECHANICS LIEN; AND FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
7/24/2017: REVISED NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF ATTORNEY
11/17/2017: Minute Order
11/17/2017: ORDER ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO FILE ITS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Notice of Ruling (Court's ruling re related cases); Filed by Lucas Brothers Construction, Inc. (Plaintiff); Dan Martinez (Cross-Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 11:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order) of 05/10/2019); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Related Case; Filed by Lucas Brothers Construction, Inc. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice ( of Order); Filed by Takashi Nakamura (Defendant); Toshiko Nakamura (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Status Report; Filed by Lucas Brothers Construction, Inc. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 2:30 PM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
Stipulation and Order (STIPULATION TO CONSOLIDATE 4 CASES AND TRANSFER CASE BC 617507 FROM STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE TO SOUTHWEST DISTRICT, DEPT. B AND CONSOLIDATE WITH THE OTHER 3 RELATED CASES); Filed by Takashi Nakamura (Defendant); Toshiko Nakamura (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by Takashi Nakamura (Defendant); Toshiko Nakamura (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Lucas Brothers Construction, Inc. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Lucas Brothers Construction, Inc. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR FORECLOSURE OF MECHANICS LIEN; AND FOR BREACH OF CONTRACTRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC617507 Hearing Date: February 13, 2020 Dept: 1
#1 – Lucas Brothers Construction v. Takashi Nakamura, et al (BC617507)
On April 19, 2016, Plaintiff Lucas Brothers Construction filed a complaint against Takashi Nakamura and Toshiko Nakamura for foreclosure of mechanics lien and breach of contract in BC617507 Lucas Brothers v. Nakamura, et al. The case is currently pending in Department 47 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in the Central District.
On July 19, 2017, Toshiko Nakamura and Takashi Nakamura sued Nourit Korzennik and Dr. Elliot Brunner in YC072196 Nakamura, et al v. Korzennik, et al. This case was originally filed in the Torrance Courthouse in the Southwest District. On April 2, 2019, Brunner and Korzennick, as trustees of the Elliot H. Runner and Nourit H. Korzennik Revocable Trust sued Toshiko Nakamura and Takashi Nakamura in 19TRCV00316 Brunner, et al v. Nakamura, et al. This case was also originally filed in the Torrance Courthouse.
On May 10, 2019, Judge Randolph Hammock in Department 47 issued an order, “upon further consideration and with consultation with Judge Hill,” relating BC617507, YC072196, and 19TRCV00316 and transferring the cases to Department 47.
On January 7, 2020, Plaintiff and Cross-Defendants Lucas Brothers Construction, Inc. and Dan Martinez, as well as Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Cross-Complainants Dr. Elliot H. Brunner and Dr. Nourit H. Korzennick filed a Motion for Order Transferring this Case and the Two Related Cases (Case Nos. YC072196 and 19TRCV00316) to the Southwest District of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Dept. B, Judge Deirdre Hill Pursuant to Local Rule 2.3(b). On January 30, 2020, Takashi Nakamura and Toshiko Nakamura filed an opposition to the motion. Movants filed their reply on February 5, 2020.
LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2) authorizes Department 1 to transfer civil cases from one judicial district to another, including when the case was filed in an improper district, or for the convenience of witnesses or to promote the ends of justice. (LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2).) The parties do not contend any of the cases were filed in an incorrect district.
Movants argue all three related cases should be reassigned specifically to Judge Deirdre Hill in Department B of the Torrance Courthouse, where YC072196 and 19TRCV00316 were pending prior to Judge Hammock’s May 10, 2019 order. However, litigants are not entitled to select their preferred judicial officer. (See e.g. Local Rule 3.3(b).)
Movants were notified of the transfer on May 10, 2019 and their counsel filed and served notice to the other parties in the actions on May 15, 2019. Movants did not file the instant motion until January 7, 2020. Takashi Nakamura and Toshiko Nakamura argue in opposition that the motion is untimely, citing Willingham v. Pecora (1941) 44 Cal.App.2d 289, 295: “It is the universal rule in this state that motions of this character must be made within a reasonable time.” However, Takashi Nakamura and Toshiko Nakamura failed to demonstrate the requisite prejudice to establish the motion was unreasonably delayed. (Ibid. (“Respondents' affidavit shows that a five month delay would result in the trial of the action if the trial court should transfer the same to Los Angeles County.”).) Here, the cases do not have a trial date, though the court notes BC617507 has been pending for nearly four years. The court shall address the merits of the motion.
Movants contend the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the transfer. (Mo. at 4, 7-8.) Considering that the same language appears in both LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2) and CCP § 397(c), the court finds that a party acting under the authority of LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2) should bear the burden of proof if it seeks a district transfer out of a presumptively correct forum, just as in motions for change of proper venue pursuant to CCP § 397(c). (See Lieberman v. Superior Court (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 396, 401.) That burden of proof should, moreover, call for affidavits that contain more than generalities and conclusions. (See Hamilton v Superior Court (1974) 37 Cal. App.3d 418, 424.) Such affidavits or declarations, like those for change of venue under CCP § 397(c), ought to show the name of each witness, the expected testimony of each witness, and facts showing why the attendance of said witnesses at trial would be inconvenient or why the ends of justice would be served by a transfer. (See Stute v. Burinda (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 11, 17.) Convenience to non-party witnesses alone should be the key to the success of the motion, and not the convenience of parties or employees of parties. (Ibid.) “The affidavits in support of the motion for change of venue on this ground must set forth the names of the witnesses, the nature of the testimony expected from each, and the reasons why the attendance of each would be inconvenient.” (Peiser v. Mettler (1958) 50 Cal.2d 594, 607.)
The declaration of attorney Laurence C. Hall filed in support of the motion fails to make the required showing as Hall merely identifies the parties and potential witnesses without explanation and states the parties “will more than likely be designating experts that will need to travel to the properties and conduct inspections of the property.” (Hall Decl. ¶¶ 11-14.) As noted in the opposition, “the convenience of the witnesses in attending the trial is the controlling element in connection with such a motion, rather than the place of their actual residence.” (Dick v. La Madrid (1947) 82 Cal.App.2d 450, 452.) Thus, Hall’s declaration is insufficient to meet the Movant’s burden. Hall also summarizes each of the three cases and their current status. (Hall Decl. ¶¶ 8-10.) Accordingly, Movants have not demonstrated a proper basis for transferring the three related unlimited civil cases to the Torrance Courthouse. Movants’ attempt to supplement their evidentiary showing in reply is improper and otherwise fails to demonstrate a transfer is warranted. (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537 (“The general rule of motion practice, which applies here, is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers.”).) Neither of the Hall declarations state “the nature of the testimony expected from each [witness], and the reasons why the attendance of each would be inconvenient.” (Peiser, supra at 607.)
The Motion for Order Transferring this Case and the Two Related Cases (Case Nos. YC072196 and 19TRCV00316 to the Southwest District of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Dept. B, Judge Deirdre Hill Pursuant to Local Rule 2.3(b) is DENIED in its entirety.
Counsel for Takashi Nakamura and Toshiko Nakamura shall give notice.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases