Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/16/2019 at 11:01:56 (UTC).

LVNV FUNDING LLC VS AUDREY G. FRIEDMAN

Case Summary

On 10/13/2015 LVNV FUNDING LLC filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against AUDREY G FRIEDMAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are NANCY L. NEWMAN and DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4960

  • Filing Date:

    10/13/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

NANCY L. NEWMAN

DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

LVNV FUNDING LLC

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

FRIEDMAN AUDREY G.

FRIEDMAN JONAH

Defendant and Cross Defendant

FRIEDMAN JONAH

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

HENRIQUES JANALIE

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

SILVERSTEIN STEVEN D.

WENDY L. SHEINKOPF ESQ.

KNAUSS JOANNE MIRRAS

Other Attorneys

BERMAN BRETT A.

NOVIAN FARHAD

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

10/4/2017: Minute Order

Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

7/2/2018: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

Demurrer

7/2/2018: Demurrer

Notice

8/3/2018: Notice

Request for Judicial Notice

8/3/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Opposition

8/3/2018: Opposition

Opposition

8/3/2018: Opposition

Stipulation and Order

8/6/2018: Stipulation and Order

Reply

8/9/2018: Reply

Reply

8/9/2018: Reply

Answer

9/4/2018: Answer

Minute Order

11/15/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

11/16/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Notice

12/5/2018: Notice

Notice

12/5/2018: Notice

Notice

12/5/2018: Notice

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

12/5/2018: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

5 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/05/2018
  • Notice (name extension) (of Unavailability of Counsel); Filed by Jonah Friedman (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • Notice (name extension) (of Case Reassignment); Filed by Jonah Friedman (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • Notice (name extension) (of Unavailability of Counsel); Filed by Jonah Friedman (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Joanne Mirras Knauss (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2018
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department P; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2018
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2018
  • Answer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2018
  • Answer to Third Amended Cross-Comp (ANS OF X-DEFT, JONAH FRIEDMAN TO THIRD AMENDED X-COMPLAINT ); Filed by Attorney for Cross-Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2018
  • Answer to Third Amended Cross-Comp; Filed by Cross-Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
228 More Docket Entries
  • 06/04/2014
  • Declaration (of Counsel ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2014
  • Request for Entry of Default; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2014
  • Proof of Service of Summons & Com; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2014
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by LVNV Funding LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2014
  • Order to Show Cause; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2014
  • Order to Show Cause (Hearing ); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2014
  • Complaint; Filed by LVNV Funding LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2014
  • Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2014
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2014
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC124960    Hearing Date: July 30, 2020    Dept: P

 

Tentative Ruling

LVNV Funding, LLC v. Audrey G. Friedman, Case No. SC124960

Hearing Date July 30, 2020

Cross-Defendant Jonah Friedman’s Motion for Nonsuit

A defendant is entitled to a nonsuit if the trial court determines, as a matter of law, the evidence presented by a plaintiff is insufficient to permit a jury or court to find in his or her favor. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §581c. Cross-defendant Jonah Friedman moves for a nonsuit as to cross-complainant Audrey Friedman’s causes of action.

Note: The court refers to the parties as “Audrey” and “Jonah,” for the sake of convenience. The informality is not intended as a sign of disrespect to the parties.

Statute of Limitations

A cause of action for fraud has a three-year statute of limitations. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §338(d). The statute of limitations begins to run when the injured party has “knowledge of facts sufficient to make a reasonably prudent person suspicious of fraud.” Sun ‘n Sand, Inc. v. United California Bank (1978) 21 Cal.3d 671, 701.

Jonah argues nonsuit must be granted because Audrey’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations. He argues Audrey’s admission at trial that she received telephone calls from creditors in 2010 and downloaded a credit report in 2011 gave her notice of Jonah’s alleged fraud by 2011 at the latest.

Audrey argues Jonah is estopped from raising the statute of limitations as a defense because Jonah was her fiduciary, and his actions prevented her from discovering his fraud. A reasonable finder of fact could determine, based on the evidence Audrey presented, that Jonah deliberately deceived Audrey to prevent her from discovering his fraud. This would prevent the running of the statute of limitations. Additionally, Jonah provides no binding authority for his argument that the statute of limitations limits plaintiff to claims that arose within three years of her discovery.

Misrepresentation and Reliance

The elements of fraud are (1) a false representation, (2) made with knowledge of its falsity,

(3) with the intent to induce the person to whom it is made to act on it, (4) an act by that person in justifiable reliance on the representation, and (5) damages. South Tahoe Gas Co. v. Hoffman Land Improvement Co. (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 750, 765.

Jonah argues Audrey presented no evidence of a false representation, reliance or damages. Although Audrey has been unable to present specific documentary evidence to support her claims, she presented her own testimony and the testimony of David Fox as to misrepresentation, reliance and damages. This evidence, if credited by a finder of fact, could allow Audrey to prevail on her fraud claims.

Theft

Finally, Jonah argues Audrey has provided no evidence that he opened credit cards in her name, so the third cause of action under Cal. Penal Code §346 must fail. Audrey, however, presented evidence that Jonah falsely signed checks and other documents in her name. This is sufficient to defeat the motion.

MOTION DENIED.

DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO AVOID IN-PERSON APPEARANCES AND TO APPEAR REMOTELY.

Case Number: SC124960    Hearing Date: July 29, 2020    Dept: P

 

TENTATIVE RULING

Audrey G. Friedman v. Jonah Friedman, Case No. SC124960

Hearing Date July 29, 2020

(1) Admissibility of Evidence Sought by Audrey Friedman and

(2) Audrey Friedman’s Motion to Amend Third Amended Cross-Complaint

Note: For clarity’s sake, the court refers to the parties as “Audrey” and “Jonah.” The court means no disrespect.

Audrey Friedman’s Evidentiary Issues

Prior Criminal Case/Convictions

Evidence of a defendant’s character, as demonstrated through prior conduct, is usually inadmissible to prove conduct on a specified occasion. Cal. Evid. Code §1101. Evidence of prior conduct is admissible if the defendant’s counsel “opens the door” by introducing or referencing that conduct via testimony. People v. Page (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 569, 574. Evidence of prior wrongful conduct may be admitted to show existence of a common plan or scheme if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its potential prejudice. Kim Butler v. John Lebouef (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 198, 205.

Though evidence of prior convictions would normally be inadmissible character evidence (Evid. Code §1101), Audrey argues Jonah’s counsel “opened the door.” Audrey points to trial transcript, wherein Jonah’s counsel asked questions related to alleged fraud committed in 2000. As Jonah points out, this does not constitute “opening the door,” as the topic was introduced by Audrey’s counsel on direct examination. Further, it is unclear how a fraud allegedly perpetrated decades ago on a third party, which was the basis of the convictions, illustrates or proves a “common plan or scheme.” Finally, as the convictions were expunged, the potential prejudice of this evidence outweighs its probative value. INADMISSIBLE.

Rosette Harwood Statement

Evidence of a statement made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing offered to prove the truth of the matter stated is generally inadmissible hearsay. Cal. Evid. Code §1200. A hearsay statement is admissible, however, when the declarant is “unavailable as a witness and the statement, when made, was so far contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far subjected him to the risk of civil or criminal liability, or so far tended to render invalid a claim by him against another, or created such a risk of making him an object of hatred, ridicule, or social disgrace in the community, that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the statement unless he believed it to be true.” Cal. Evid. Code §1230. A statement which is “in part inculpatory and in part exculpatory (e.g. one which admits some complicity but places the major responsibility on others) does not meet the test of trustworthiness and is thus inadmissible.” In re Larry C. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 62, 69.

Audrey seeks to admit a letter from her deceased aunt, Rosette Harwood, for the truth of the matter asserted, that Jonah admitted in 2004 he embezzled money and made unapproved charges on Rosette’s credit cards. Exhibit 4. Audrey argues the letter is admissible under Cal. Evid. Code §1230’s exception for statements against interest by an unavailable witness.

The bulk of the letter consists of allegations against Jonah. The only admission that could be interpreted as being against Rosette’s interest is that “Jonah also informed me that now that I know I can be in as much trouble as he is.” Exhibit 4 at pg. 1. There are no other admissions of wrongdoing or unlawful activity. Even if her belief that she could be in trouble qualified as a statement against interest, the letter as a whole constitutes a statement “places the major responsibility on others” (Jonah). It is inadmissible under In re Larry C. INADMISSIBLE.

Audrey Friedman’s Motion for Leave to Amend

Audrey seeks leave to allege a statutory cause of action for domestic violence. Audrey alleges Jonah “devot[ed] himself to finding and enforcing ways to control and prevent Audrey’s discovery of any and all information that might possibly give Audrey a clue as to the separate life Jonah was leading” and “subjected Audrey to fearsome bouts of his rage,” which constitutes domestic violence. Audrey seeks to add this cause of action because Jonah screamed profanities at her relatives in court on November 22, 2019.

Generally, courts liberally allow amendments at any stage. A court may deny amendment if the party requesting leave unreasonably delayed. Falcon v. Long Beach Genetics, Inc. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1281. Under Cal. Civ. Code §1708, a person is liable for the tort of domestic violence if he or she inflicts injury on the plaintiff “resulting from abuse, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 13700 of the Penal Code. “Abuse” is defined as “intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury or placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to himself, or another.” Cal. Pen. Code §13700. Under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §340.15, a civil action for “recovery of damages suffered as a result of domestic violence,” must be brought “within three years from the date of the last act of domestic violence by the defendant against the plaintiff.” Under §3401.5 “’domestic violence’” has the same meaning as defined in Section 6211 of the Family Code.

A claim for domestic violence under Cal. Civ. Code §1708 requires injury or reasonable apprehension of injury; there is no evidence of either here. Under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §340.15, “domestic violence” is defined more broadly and does not require threat of injury. To the extent the claim is based on Jonah’s outburst in court, Audrey alleges the outburst was directed at her relatives, not at her. Audrey does not have standing to bring a claim for domestic violence based on conduct not directed at her, nor could the outburst be considered to have caused Audrey bodily injury or a reasonable apprehension of imminent serious injury.

To the extent this cause of action of action is based on other conduct– i.e. his “fearsome bouts of rage” that allegedly occurred while the Friedmans were living together or alleged attempts to control Audrey’s access to information – there is no evidence that these claims could not have been alleged previously. Audrey has been aware of these facts since the cross-complaint was filed, since they allegedly occurred during the marriage. Audrey unreasonably delayed in seeking to add the cause of action for domestic violence. Further, introducing a new claim, while trial is ongoing and after the discovery cutoff, would prejudice Jonah. DENIED.

DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO AVOID IN-PERSON APPEARANCES AND TO APPEAR REMOTELY.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where LVNV FUNDING LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BERMAN BRETT ALAN

Latest cases represented by Lawyer NOVIAN FARHAD