Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/02/2019 at 01:35:03 (UTC).

MCKISSOCK VS KASHFIAN

Case Summary

On 05/14/2015 MCKISSOCK filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against KASHFIAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Torrance Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are STUART M. RICE and DEIRDRE HILL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0587

  • Filing Date:

    05/14/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Torrance Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

STUART M. RICE

DEIRDRE HILL

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

JOHN MCKISSOCK

MCKISSOCK JOHN

Defendants

BARRY KASHFIAN

JANET LEE

DELTA COMPUTER CONSULTING (DOE 1)

DOES 1-100

HYUN BONG LEE D.O.

HYUN BONG LEE D.O. INC.

LEE HYUN BONG

DELTA COMPUTER CONSULTING DOE 1

KASHFIAN BARRY

LEE JANET

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

STEVEN F. SPIERER

GOLDBERG STEPHEN B

DEMASON MICHELLE R.

Defendant Attorneys

LAW OFFICE OF ERNESTO F. ALDOVER

KENNETH GAUGH

SGRO WILLIAM RANDALL

ALDOVER ERNESTO FELIPE JR

GAUGH KENNETH RAY

 

Court Documents

Summons

5/14/2015: Summons

Legacy Document

11/12/2015: Legacy Document

Case Management Statement

11/16/2015: Case Management Statement

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

12/1/2015: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Legacy Document

2/3/2016: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

2/9/2016: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

1/31/2017: Legacy Document

Minute Order

3/7/2017: Minute Order

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

8/9/2017: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Legacy Document

10/24/2017: Legacy Document

Minute Order

11/28/2017: Minute Order

Undertaking

2/21/2018: Undertaking

Legacy Document

4/26/2018: Legacy Document

Notice of Motion

7/25/2018: Notice of Motion

Minute Order

10/23/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

2/5/2019: Unknown

Opposition

4/5/2019: Opposition

Minute Order

4/24/2019: Minute Order

101 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/17/2019
  • Disassociation of Attorney; Filed by Barry Kashfian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Application for Issuance of Writ of Execution, Possession or Sale; Filed by Barry Kashfian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest; Filed by Barry Kashfian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Ruling on Submitted Matter

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter - Motion to Bifurcate) of 04/24/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Ruling on Submitted Matter - Motion to Bifurcate)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion to Bifurcate - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Bifurcate)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • Reply ( to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Bifurcation of Trial); Filed by Barry Kashfian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • Motion to Bifurcate; Filed by Barry Kashfian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
183 More Docket Entries
  • 06/30/2015
  • Answer; Filed by Barry Kashfian (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2015
  • Notice of Hearing on Demurrer; Filed by Hyun Bong Lee, D.O. INC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2015
  • Notice of Entry of Dismissal & P&S Filed by John McKissock (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by John McKissock (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by John McKissock (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/02/2015
  • Request for Dismissal-Partial; Filed by John McKissock (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2015
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by John McKissock (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2015
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by John McKissock (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2015
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: YC070587    Hearing Date: April 7, 2021    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka

Department B

Wednesday – April 7, 2021

Calendar No. 7

PROCEEDINGS

John McKissock v. Barry Kashfian, et al.

YC070587

  1. John McKissock’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One

    TENTATIVE RULING

    John McKissock’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One is granted, in part, and denied, in part.

    Background

    Plaintiff filed his Complaint on May 14, 2015. Plaintiff’s operative Second Amended Complaint was filed on January 13, 2017. Plaintiff alleges the following facts: Plaintiff and Defendant are both neighboring owners of suites in a medical building. For Plaintiff’s suites to have adequate irrigation, it was found to be necessary to pass through a ceiling of Defendant’s suites. However, Defendant failed to allow access. The CC&Rs establish Plaintiff’s right to force improvements and to recover damages for interference with Plaintiff’s property rights. Plaintiff set forth causes of action for: 1. Breach of CC&Rs; 2. TRO and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction; 3. Declaratory Relief; 4. Damages for Nuisance.

    On April 28, 2016, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction requiring Defendant to provide Plaintiff access to the suite to commence installation of the plumbing lines. Defendant filed a notice of appeal.

    On September 9, 2016, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for an undertaking - $50,000 – with the caveat that any additional amounts warranted could be revisited with a future motion.

    On March 7, 2017, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for an order requiring and fixing an additional undertaking in the sum of $185,710.00.

    On June 25, 2018 the Appellate Court issued its notice of remittitur, reversing the order granting the preliminary injunction on the grounds it was more akin to a premature permanent injunction. The remittitur provided Kashfian should recover his costs.

    The case proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant on all causes of action. The judgment, entered by this Court on December 20, 2019, and served by Plaintiff via Notice of Entry of Judgment dated December 30, 2019, entitles Plaintiff to damages in the amount of $ 1,725,000, plus attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest (if allowed by a noticed motion).

    Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal of the judgment and the appeal is still pending. Plaintiff has initiated post-judgment discovery and this discovery dispute resulted from those requests and responses.

    Meet and Confer

    Plaintiff filed a meet and confer declaration setting forth a reasonable good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion in compliance with CCP § 2030.300(b), CCP § 2031.310(b)(2), and CCP § 2016.040. (Decl., Michelle R. DeMason, ¶¶ 3-17).

    Motion to Compel

    CCP § 2030.300(a). Notice of the motion must be given within 45 days after service of verified responses in question, or any verified supplemental responses. CCP § 2030.300(c). The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration in compliance with CCP § 2016.040. (CCP § 2030.300(b).)

    a statement the party will comply with the demand, a representation the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand, or an objection. (CCP § 2031.210(a).) A response to an inspection demand may be inadequate because it is evasive or incomplete; contains an incomplete statement of compliance; an inadequate, incomplete, or evasive representation of inability to comply; or meritless or overly general objections to a demand. (CCP § 2031.310(a).)

    “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand.” (CCP § 2031.310(c).)

    Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents 1-6, 10, 19, 26, 40, 41, 48, and 54.

    These are very straightforward interrogatories that are designed to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant’s responses are evasive and incomplete. Rather than providing a code-compliant verified response, Defendant simply makes reference to a financial statement filed with the Court. Plaintiff is entitled to a code-compliant response to its discovery requests verified under penalty of perjury.

    Defendant has asserted a financial right of privacy of third parties. However, the Court finds that upon balancing the privacy interests of these third parties and Plaintiff’s right to obtain the information, the balance weighs in favor of disclosure. The mere identity of these third parties only imposes a minimal privacy intrusion. On the other hand, Plaintiff has a substantial interest in seeking to collect upon its judgment. Obtaining information to collect on a judgment is a valid significant interest. A judgment creditor has a "right to discovery facts about the nature and location of assets to make that judgment more than a scrap of paper." SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal. App. 4th 741, 754-55.

    Plaintiff’s response is incomplete and evasive.

    The motion is denied as to number 82. The Court finds, at this time, Plaintiff has not established that the need for this information outweighs Defendant’s privacy interest in keeping his social security number private.

    However, these interrogatories are not included in the separate statement. Therefore, no ruling is made as to these interrogatories.

    The requests are not narrowed sufficiently to focus on the reasons for the inquiry – the attempt to collect on the judgment – but, instead, encompasses numerous documents that would have no bearing on asset collection.

    The motion is granted because Defendant’s response was incomplete and not fully responsive to the time frame requested.

    Defendant’s response is incomplete and evasive.

    Requests 40 and 41 essentially seeks all tax records, apparently not limited to federal tax returns, and estimated tax returns for 2019.

    The Court finds that Defendant’s financial right of privacy as to his tax returns outweighs Plaintiff’s asserted need for this information. Plaintiff is correct that the tax return privilege is not necessarily absolute. However, at this time, Plaintiff has not established that the need for this information can overcome Defendant’s right to maintain this information private.

    Li v. Yan (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 56, 67.

    Most fundamentally, the judgment herein did not award punitive damages which appears to be the threshold factor.

    Request 54 seeks all documents that relate to the transfer of any interest in an LLC from May 2019 to the present.

    However, the responses do not comply with Section 2031.230 which states: “A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.”

    Sanctions

    Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

    As to the portions of this motion which were granted, Defendant is ordered to serve further responses within 10 days of this date.

    Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where JANET H. LEE D.O. INC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SPIERER STEVEN F. ESQ.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer DEMASON MICHELLE R.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer GOLDBERG STEPHEN B