On 12/24/2014 MICHAEL SHABSIS filed a Personal Injury - Other Product Liability lawsuit against THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIF. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are BENNY C. OSORIO and DANIEL S. MURPHY. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
BENNY C. OSORIO
DANIEL S. MURPHY
COGEN PHILIP M.D.
DOES 1 THROUGH 200
LOS ANGELES COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
RISNICK NEUROPSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL AT UCLA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIF.
LEWIS K. DARLENE
THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL J. LIBMAN
MICHAEL J. LIBMAN LAW O/O
BOUCHER RAYMOND P. ESQ.
BRANDMAYER KENT T. ESQ.
FRASER STEPHEN C. ESQ.
DIK DANIEL K.
HANSEN RYAN T.
[MA] DLA PIPER LLP US
BRANDMEYER KENT THOMAS ESQ.
[CA] DLA PIPER LLP US
FRASER STEPHEN CLARK
MICHAEL J. LIBMAN APC
2/22/2017: Declaration - SEPARATE VOLUME DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; INDEX; DECLARATIONS AND EVIDENCE
1/10/2019: Statement of the Case
3/8/2019: Special Verdict
7/21/2016: COURT'S RULING
5/22/2017: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT -
6/9/2021: Order - ORDER RE DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES' MOTION TO ENFORCE THE LIEN ON JUDGMENT
2/28/2018: DECLARATION OF DAVID B. ROSS, M.D., PH.D., M.B.I. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT PFIZER, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
11/5/2018: Objection - Objection Responses and Objections to plaintiff's Separate Statement of Disputed Facts
1/10/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore
1/18/2019: Opposition - Opposition Plaintiffs Notice Of Non-Opposition To Defendant Philip H. Cogens Motion In Limine No. 7
1/23/2019: Opposition - Opposition TO DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANEGELES MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 02 TO EXCLUDE OPINIONS AND TESTIMONY FROM DR. ALEXANDER KORCHMAREV
12/22/2016: Minute Order -
1/17/2017: STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER; ORDER FOR RELEASE OF RECORDS
1/25/2017: NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND APPLICATION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF JESSICA WILSON;. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; ETC.
10/23/2017: DEFENDANT THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE THE HEARING DATE FOR THE REGENTS' MOTION TO QUASH THE DEPOSITION OF DAN BEGEL, M.D., E
11/8/2017: DEFENDANT THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF MICHAEL SIIABSIS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH THE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE ISSUED TO DEFENDA
DocketNotice (of ruling re motion to enforce judgment lien); Filed by County of Los Angeles (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Daniel S. Murphy, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (MOTION TO ENFORCE THE LIEN ON THE JUDGMENT) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion - Other MOTION TO ENFORCE THE LIEN ON THE J...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder (re Defendant County of Los Angeles' Motion to Enforce the Lien on Judgment); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketReply (DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES? REPLY TO PLAINTIFF?S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT?S MOTION TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT LIEN); Filed by County of Los Angeles (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketOpposition (PLAINTIFF?S SECOND OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT COLA?S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO ENFORCE THE LIEN ON THE JUDGMENT; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO 128.5, 128.7; DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. LIBMAN); Filed by Michael Shabsis (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMotion re: (County of Los Angeles Enforcement of Judgment Lien); Filed by County of Los Angeles (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by County of Los Angeles (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 32, Daniel S. Murphy, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO ENFORCE THE LIEN ON THE JUDGMENT FOR COST BY THE COUNTY LOS ANGELES) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion - Other NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO ENFO...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketDemurrer; Filed by The Regents of the University of Calif. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF HEARING; DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice; Filed by Risnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital at UCLA (Defendant); The Regents of the University of Calif. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Risnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital at UCLA (Defendant); The Regents of the University of Calif. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Michael Shabsis (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Michael Shabsis (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: (1) MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE; ETCRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC567668 Hearing Date: March 29, 2021 Dept: 32
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et. al.
Case No.: BC567668
Hearing Date: March 29, 2021
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES’ MOTION TO ENFORCE THE LIENT ON JUDGMENT
Because the motion before the Court is a post-judgment application, the Court does not need to discuss the background of this action in depth. It assumes the parties are generally familiar with the proceedings that led to this Court dismissing most of Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor Michael Shabsis’ (“Plaintiff”) claims against Defendant/Judgment Creditor County of Los Angeles (“County”) and a jury finding in County’s favor on the remaining negligence claim.
On April 19, 2019, the Court entered judgment in County’s favor and ordered that County would recover its costs from Plaintiff, later determined to be a total of $56,762.81.
County now moves for the Court to enforce a lien in the amount of $56,762.81 that Plaintiff is entitled to receive from co-defendant Pfizer.
County did not file a reply as of March 23, 2021. A reply was due on March 21, 2021. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)
County argues that it is entitled pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 708.470 as a judgment creditor to have co-defendant Pfizer pay County the money Pfizer owes Plaintiff, specifically $56,762.81. County served the lien on Plaintiff’s counsel on January 9, 2020 and there is no filed claim of exemption.
In opposition, Plaintiff makes four arguments, and the Court addresses them in turn as follows. As set forth below, the Court agrees with the second argument only and denies the motion on this basis unless satisfactorily addressed at the hearing.
First, County did not serve its notice of lien using the required Judicial Council forms. However, Plaintiff cites no supporting authority that County is required to use Judicial Council forms. (See Cal. Prac. Guide Enf. J. & Debt Ch. 6G-8 § 6:1476 [“The Judicial Council has approved an optional form that meets the statutory requirements.”], emphasis added.) In any event, Plaintiff takes issues with notices of liens allegedly served in 2019. County has shown that it did use approved Judicial Council Form for its notice of lien served on January 9, 2020.
Second, County did not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 697.510, subdivision (a) because the County did not file the notice of judgment liens with the Secretary of State. Given the statute and no indication that County filed the appropriate document with the Secretary of State, the Court must deny the motion. Additionally, the Court notes that County does not otherwise proffer any supporting proof that the judgment lien was “duly recorded” as claimed in its memorandum of points and authorities. (See motion 3:17-18.) The attached notice, which was not properly authenticated by a declaration, bears no indications of proper recording.
Accordingly, the Court denies the motion on this basis. However, if County proffers proof of compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 697.510, subdivision (a) at the hearing, the Court would continue as follows.
Third, Plaintiff argues that some of the sought money pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 704.140, subdivision (b) must be exempt because it is a personal injury settlement used to support himself and family. However, Plaintiff fails to provide any proof that the money he received from Pfizer is necessary to support himself or his family.
Fourth, Plaintiff argues that Plaintiff is relieved from failing to make a timely claim of exemption pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473 because Plaintiff’s counsel did not receive the notice of lien due to inadvertence, mistake, or excusable neglect. Therefore, Plaintiff should be allowed to file the notice of exemption claiming that he blind, disabled, and unemployed, and thus, needs all the money that County seeks to collect. However, Code of Civil Procedure section 473 requires Plaintiff to simultaneously file a “copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein.” Plaintiff fails to attach the proposed notice of exemption.
To the extent that the Court reaches the fourth argument, the Court is inclined to grant the motion. Plaintiff’s fourth argument may have merit, but it not procedurally proper and not fully briefed. Plaintiff can file a motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473. The Court will consider this issue once both sides properly brief it.
The Court denies County’s motion without prejudice because of failure to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 697.510, subdivision (a). If County resolves this issue at the hearing, the Court grants County’s motion.
County is to give notice of this ruling.
Case Number: BC567668 Hearing Date: March 26, 2021 Dept: 32
TRI INVEST, LLC, et al.,
THE GOLDEN GATE TRUST, et. al.
Case No.: 19STCV42722
Hearing Date: March 26, 2021
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
motion to set aside default judgment
This action arises out of plaintiffs’ attempt to quiet title against the named defendants. For the purposes of this motion, the substance of this lawsuit is irrelevant.
On August 18, 2020, after trial, the Court granted default judgment against all named defendants and the action was disposed.
On August 26, 2020, non-party Felix Ajegbo (Ajegbo) filed his first motion to set aside default judgment and to quash service of summons. On October 14, 2020, the Court denied the motion for Ajegbo’s failure to file a proof of service.
On November 5, 2020, Ajegbo filed his second motion to set aside default judgment and quash service of summons. On November 16, 2020, the Court heard from Ajegbo and denied the motion without prejudice, as he is not a party to the action.
On February 3, 2021, the Honorable Maureen Duffy-Lewis of Department 38 at Los Angeles Superior Court ordered in another case, Shamtoub, et al. v. Ajegbo, et al. (Case No. BC658924), that Ajegbo is a vexatious litigant and that any of his future filing attempts in Los Angeles Superior Court must obtain a prefiling order pursuant to CCP section 391.7 (Order).
On February 18, 2021, Ajegbo filed his third motion to set aside default judgment without obtaining a prefiling order, as previously directed.
When there is “a prefiling order which prohibits a vexatious litigant from filing any new litigation in the courts of this state in propria persona without first obtaining leave of the presiding justice or presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed” “[d]isobedience of the order by a vexatious litigant may be punished as a contempt of court.” (CCP § 391.7(a).) “Litigation” in this section “includes any petition, application, or motion other than a discovery motion ….” (Id., subd. (d).)
Although Ajegbo was found to be a vexatious litigant on February 3, 2021, he nonetheless decided to file this instant motion without first obtaining a prefiling order. Based on the violation of the prefiling order requirement, the Court strikes this motion.
Separately, the Court will briefly address the merits of Ajegbo motion. Ajegbo has moved a few times to set aside the default judgment that was never entered against him, as he was never a named defendant, Ajegbo argues that he is entitled to an order setting aside the default judgment against the named defendant based on CCP sections 473(b), 473(d), 473.5, 418.10, and Civil Code section 1788.61.
As to each of basis upon which Ajegbo relies in this instant motion, the statutes require that he be a party to the litigation. CCP section 473(b) “relieve[s] a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” Ajegbo is not a party to this litigation because he was never named as a defendant in this action. CCP section 473(d) is similarly in applicable because this provision of the Code refers to the injured “party,” which Ajegbo is not. CCP section 435.5(a) states that “[w]hen service of a summons has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to defend the action and a default or default judgment has been entered against him or her in the action, he or she may serve and file a notice of motion to set aside the default or default judgment and for leave to defend the action.” Again, Ajegbo is not a party to this lawsuit because he was never named as a defendant. CCP section 418.10 states that a defendant may serve and file a notice of motion to quash service of summons. (CCP § 418(a)(1).) Again, Ajegbo is not a defendant but a non-party. Civil Code section 1788.61 states that “if service of a summons has not resulted in actual notice to a person in time to defend an action brought by a debt buyer and a default or default judgment has been entered against the person in the action, the person may serve and file a notice of motion and motion to set aside the default or default judgment against the person.” (CCP § 1788.61(a)(1).) This provision of the statute is applicable to a person again whom an action is brought by a debt buyer. For one last time, this action was not brought against Ajegbo. None of these statutory provisions are applicable to Ajegbo’s situation and none of his argument has merit.
More importantly Ajegbo provides no evidence as to why the default judgment should be set aside.
Ajegbo’s motion to set aside the default judgment is STRICKEN. The Court is not imposing a monetary penalty upon Mr. Ajegbo at this time.
Ajegbo’s motion is also denied on the merits. Ajebo was not set forth any evidence to justify setting aside the judgment.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases