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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
STUART M. RICE
DELTA COMPUTER CONSULTING (DOE 1)
HYUN BONG LEE D.O.
HYUN BONG LEE D.O. INC.
LEE HYUN BONG
DELTA COMPUTER CONSULTING DOE 1
STEVEN F. SPIERER
GOLDBERG STEPHEN B
DEMASON MICHELLE R.
LAW OFFICE OF ERNESTO F. ALDOVER
SGRO WILLIAM RANDALL
ALDOVER ERNESTO FELIPE JR
GAUGH KENNETH RAY
11/12/2015: Legacy Document
11/16/2015: Case Management Statement
12/1/2015: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
2/3/2016: Legacy Document
2/9/2016: Legacy Document
1/31/2017: Legacy Document
3/7/2017: Minute Order
8/9/2017: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice
10/24/2017: Legacy Document
11/28/2017: Minute Order
4/26/2018: Legacy Document
7/25/2018: Notice of Motion
10/23/2018: Minute Order
4/24/2019: Minute Order
Disassociation of Attorney; Filed by Barry Kashfian (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Application for Issuance of Writ of Execution, Possession or Sale; Filed by Barry Kashfian (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest; Filed by Barry Kashfian (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department M; Ruling on Submitted MatterRead MoreRead Less
Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter - Motion to Bifurcate) of 04/24/2019); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Ruling on Submitted Matter - Motion to Bifurcate)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Motion to Bifurcate - Held - Taken under SubmissionRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Bifurcate)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Reply ( to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Bifurcation of Trial); Filed by Barry Kashfian (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Motion to Bifurcate; Filed by Barry Kashfian (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by Barry Kashfian (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Hearing on Demurrer; Filed by Hyun Bong Lee, D.O. INC. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Entry of Dismissal & P&S Filed by John McKissock (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by John McKissock (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by John McKissock (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Request for Dismissal-Partial; Filed by John McKissock (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by John McKissock (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by John McKissock (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: YC070587 Hearing Date: April 7, 2021 Dept: B
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT
Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka
Wednesday – April 7, 2021
Calendar No. 7
John McKissock v. Barry Kashfian, et al.
John McKissock’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One
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.
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.”
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.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases