Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/09/2019 at 22:48:50 (UTC).

PATRICIA BENTSON VS MARK B BARRON

Case Summary

On 10/13/2015 PATRICIA BENTSON filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against MARK B BARRON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are STEVEN J. KLEIFIELD and DEIRDRE HILL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7643

  • Filing Date:

    10/13/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

STEVEN J. KLEIFIELD

DEIRDRE HILL

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

BENTSON PATRICIA

Defendants and Respondents

BARRON MARK B.

BOWEN MIMS; DOE 1

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO

COLLUM R MICHAEL

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN D. WILSON

WILSON JOHN D

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

1/29/2018: NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

Minute Order

4/5/2018: Minute Order

CIVIL DEPOSIT

4/17/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

Notice

6/24/2019: Notice

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: (1) TRESPASS TO LAND; ETC

10/13/2015: VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: (1) TRESPASS TO LAND; ETC

SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

3/17/2016: SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

Minute Order

4/11/2016: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RULING AT SECOND POST MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE

3/6/2017: NOTICE OF RULING AT SECOND POST MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO OSC RE: DISMISSAL; DECLARATION OF FARHAD NOVIAN

3/9/2017: PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO OSC RE: DISMISSAL; DECLARATION OF FARHAD NOVIAN

NOTICE OF MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

4/26/2017: NOTICE OF MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

REPLY OF DEFENDANT/CROSS- COMPLAINANT MARK B. BARRON TO PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFENDANT PATRICIA BENTSON/SLESINGER?S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT MARK B. BARRON?S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIR

5/19/2017: REPLY OF DEFENDANT/CROSS- COMPLAINANT MARK B. BARRON TO PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFENDANT PATRICIA BENTSON/SLESINGER?S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT MARK B. BARRON?S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIR

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER

5/23/2017: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER

VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1. DECLARATORY RELIEF; ETC.

6/7/2017: VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1. DECLARATORY RELIEF; ETC.

NOTICE OF REQUEST AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT BY CROSS-DEFENDANT PATRICIA SLESINGER-BENTSON

7/21/2017: NOTICE OF REQUEST AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT BY CROSS-DEFENDANT PATRICIA SLESINGER-BENTSON

NOTICE OF RULING, STATUS CONFERENCE, AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

9/8/2017: NOTICE OF RULING, STATUS CONFERENCE, AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1. DECLARATORY RELIEF; ETC

10/12/2017: VERIFIED SECOND AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1. DECLARATORY RELIEF; ETC

AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

10/25/2017: AMENDED PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

CROSS-COMPLAINANT MARK B. BARRON'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO CROSS- DEFENDANT PATRICIA SLES1NGER- BENTSON'S DEMURRER TO FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OF SECOND AMENDED CROSS- COMPL

12/15/2017: CROSS-COMPLAINANT MARK B. BARRON'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO CROSS- DEFENDANT PATRICIA SLES1NGER- BENTSON'S DEMURRER TO FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION OF SECOND AMENDED CROSS- COMPL

112 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/24/2019
  • Notice (OF UNAVAILABILITY); Filed by Patricia Bentson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2019
  • Notice (OF UNAVAILABILITY); Filed by Patricia Bentson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 49; Voluntary Settlement Conference ((2) Order to Show Cause re Dismissal; (3) Trial setting conference; (4) Status Conference) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (re statement of policies and procedures for settlement conferences conducted by trial judge, stipulation and acknowledgment of receipt); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Voluntary Settlement Conference (2) Order to Show Cause re Di...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 49; Non-Appearance Case Review (re receipt Joint Statement) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review re receipt Joint Statement)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 49; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Mark B. Barron (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 49; Final Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
257 More Docket Entries
  • 11/10/2015
  • Supplemental Declaration; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2015
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2015
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2015
  • OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2015
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2015
  • Declaration; Filed by Patricia Bentson (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2015
  • DECLARATION OF BEN L. WAGNER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S EXPARTE APPLICATION TO FILE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2015
  • VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: (1) TRESPASS TO LAND; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC597643    Hearing Date: March 04, 2021    Dept: 49


Case Number: BC695842    Hearing Date: March 04, 2021    Dept: 49

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Emmanuel Trousse, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No.

BC695842

v.

[Tentative] Ruling

Lynne A. Delaney, et al.

Defendants.

Hearing Date: March 4, 2021

Department 49, Judge Stuart M. Rice

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Enforcement of Court Order

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Emmanuel Trousse and Lara Trousse

Responding Party: Defendants Ruben Gomez and Lynne Delaney

Ruling: Plaintiffs’ motion for enforcement of the March 19, 2019 order is denied without prejudice.

Plaintiffs Emmanuel Trousse and Lara Trousse (“Plaintiffs”) move for an order enforcing the preliminary injunction order issued by this court on March 19, 2019 against Defendants Lynne Delaney and Ruben Gomez (“Defendants”)

On March 19, 2019, the court issued the following order:

Defendants, and their agents, employees, representatives, and all those acting under, for, or in concert with them shall be enjoined and restrained from doing, commencing, continuing, or maintaining any action to:

(1) Impair or frustrate Plaintiffs’ right and ability to exercise management and control over the LLCs;

(2) Take or attempt to take any action on behalf of the LLCs;

(3) Impair or frustrate Plaintiffs’ right and ability to access any and all books, records, financials and transactional records of the LLCs, including making available to Plaintiffs immediately all such books, records, financials and transactional records of the LLCs;

(4) Access any and all bank accounts belonging to the LLCs and bank accounts containing LLC funds;

(5) Impair or frustrate Plaintiffs’ exercise of their rights to control all assets and bank accounts of the LLCs;

(6) Pay, distribute, or in any way disburse Plaintiffs’ records and assets; and

(7) Sell, transfer, or in any way convey any assets, including interests in such assets, belonging to Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants still refuse to return the LLC funds and continue to dissipate the funds in their possession. “Defendants still refuse to return the LLC/Trousse assets, prompting the Trousses to seek this Court’s intervention to enforce the PI Order and thus ensure adherence to its terms and vindication of its intention.” (Motion 5:13-14.) While the motion details Defendants’ purported conduct, or lack of action, in violation of the court’s preliminary injunction order, the motion is devoid of evidence to support such contentions. Plaintiffs submit only the declaration of Todd Lander, their counsel, who attaches a number of exhibits:

1. the court’s March 19, 2019, Order;

2. the Stipulation and Order re Deposit of Funds Into Blocked Accounted, entered on November 18, 2019;

3. the court’s January 22, 2020 Order modifying the November 18, 2019 Order re: Deposit of Funds into Blocked Account;

4. Plaintiffs’ previously filed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed on September 29, 2020;

5. Plaintiffs’ previously filed Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, for Summary Adjudication, filed on October 22, 2020;

6. excerpts from the transcript of Ruben Gomez’s August 22, 2018 deposition in Mariposa Professional Building, LLC v. Delaney, et al, San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. CIVDS 1719661, regarding the Defendants’ source of income; and

7. excerpts from the transcript of Lynne Delaney’s August 22, 2018 deposition in Mariposa Professional Building, LLC v. Delaney, et al, San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. CIVDS 1719661, regarding what Defendants do for a living.

None of these exhibits support the contentions of the motion. Defendants assert as such in opposition, and contend that “Defendants do not even pretend that they lack complete control of the LLCs and their assets. Nor do they cite a single piece of admissible evidence suggesting that Defendants have done anything to impair their operation of the LLCs or their assets.” (Opp. 9:25-27.) It is presumed that Defendants intended to refer to “Plaintiffs” and not “Defendants” at the beginning of the cited sentence. However, the underlying reasoning is correct.

As the moving parties, Plaintiffs bear the burden of setting forth evidence to support their request. The preliminary injunction remains in force pending resolution of this action, and any violations thereof potentially subject the violators to contempt. However, to support Plaintiff’s request for an order of enforcement, Plaintiffs must factually demonstrate non-compliance with the March 19, 2019 order. Plaintiffs’ request for “the immediate enforcement of the PI Order and the return of the funds in the blocked account as well as the rest of the LLC funds Defendants transferred from the LLCs still in Defendants’ hands” is not supported by an evidentiary showing. (Motion 19:9-11.) The preliminary injunction order is currently in force, and absent evidence that Defendants are acting in contravention of the order, there are no grounds on which to grant this motion.

Plaintiffs also request “an accounting of the LLC funds – after Defendants transferred them from the LLCs, including where it was spent, where it is held now, and in what form.” (Motion 19:10-12.) On November 18, 2019, the court entered as an order a stipulation between the parties that:

1. The Parties will cooperate to open a blocked, interest-bearing bank account with a financial institution in the United States of America mutually chosen by the Parties (the “Blocked Account”);

2. The Court may decide whether the Blocked Account shall be jointly-titled in the names of i) the three LLCs only, or ii) the three LLCs and Ruben Gomez;

3. Defendants will deposit all amounts remaining in the Funds as of November 1, 2019, into the Blocked Account;

4. No person or entity will be allowed to access ay of the Funds in the Blocked Account until and unless otherwise ordered by this Court or until and unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by all Parties to the above-entitled action (whichever occurs first); and

5. Counsel for Defendants will provide a full and complete accounting, within ten (10) calendar days of the entry of Court’s Order accepting this Stipulation, of i) the amounts taken out of the Funds for any purpose, including, without limitation, for purposes of paying Defendants’ attorneys’ fees, in the above-entitled action, ii) the specific payee and purpose for any amount that was at any time removed from the Funds; and iii) the amounts remaining in the Funds as of November 1, 2019.

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants “still have not provided the required accounting,” but provide no evidence to support this contention. (Motion 6:8.) Counsel for Plaintiffs does not declare as such. In turn, counsel for Defendants submits into evidence a February 20, 2020 email to which Defense counsel attaches an accounting “for the funds withdrawn by Lynne Delaney and Ruben Gomez from the three LLC’s in this matter, pursuant to the LLCs’ Written Operating Agreements. These funds are available to be transferred into the jointly held account at First Republic.” (Wallenstein Decl. ¶ 15, Exh. O.)

Concurrently with the filing of the reply, Plaintiffs request that the court take judicial notice of various documents:

1. The October 22, 2020 Declaration of Todd M. Lander in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative for Summary Adjudication;

2. The October 21, 2020 Declaration of Emmanuel Trousse in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative for Summary Adjudication;

3. The February 5, 2019 Declaration of Lynne Delaney attached to Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction;

4. The July 31, 2019 Declaration of Lynne Delanay in support of Defendant’s Opposition to Motion for OSC re Contempt; and

5. Defendants’ Amended Cross-Complaint in this action, which has now been voluntarily dismissed as against Lara Trousse and Emmanuel Trousse.

This request for judicial notice is untimely and requires the introduction of new evidence with the reply brief. Consideration of this evidence would deprive Defendants of the opportunity to object thereto or provide any argument in opposition.

While Plaintiffs’ memorandum sets forth various triable issues in this matter, Plaintiffs have failed to provide this court with evidence to support their claim that Defendants are in violation the March 19, 2019 preliminary injunction order. In reply, Plaintiffs contend that

[t]here has never been a more opportune time for Defendants Lynne Delaney and Ruben Gomez (“Defendants”) to disingenuously claim that Plaintiffs Lara and Emmanuel Trousse (“Trousses” or “Plaintiffs”) have not shown “a single piece of evidence in support of the ‘facts’ on which they rely.” (Oppo. at 5:4-7.) After all, it was Defendants who unilaterally dismissed all their affirmative claims against Plaintiffs at the eleventh hour before their Oppositions to Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion and motion for judgment on the pleadings were due, rendering both motions moot, so that the Court would have no occasion to see and consider the overwhelming evidence included therein.

(Reply 2:2-8.)

However, this argument does not negate the fact that Plaintiffs failed to carry their burden, and their reliance on inferences of admission from the dismissal of Defendants’ Cross-Complaint does not set forth grounds for their requests.

Defendants request sanctions for having to oppose a “bad faith” and “frivolous” motion. (Opp. 16:25-17:5.) An issue pervasive in Defendants’ opposition is that Defendants appear to consistently interchange “Plaintiffs” and “Defendants.” Here, under the subheading “Defendants Should Be Sanctioned,” Defendants argue that “Defendants’ decision to bring this motion, and their subsequent refusal to withdraw it, should be sanctioned.” (Opp. 15:23-24.) It is presumed that Defendants do not seek to sanction themselves. Regardless, it appears that the parties have substantial disagreements pertaining to the compliance with the March 19, 2019 order. Despite Plaintiffs’ failure to substantiate their position, the court does not find that this motion, albeit unavailing, was brought in bad faith. The request for sanctions is denied.

Plaintiffs’ motion for enforcement of the March 19, 2019 order is denied without prejudice. Despite this ruling, the court is concerned about the current status of the agreed upon blocked account and whether funds have been taken from the account without benefit of a court order.

Date: March 4, 2021

Honorable Stuart M. Rice

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC597643    Hearing Date: September 01, 2020    Dept: 49

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Patricia Benston,

Plaintiff,

Case No.

BC597643

v.

[Tentative] Ruling

Mark B. Barron, et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: September 1, 2020

Department 49, Judge Stuart M. Rice

(1) Defendant’s Motion to Strike Demand for Exchange of Expert Witnesses

Moving Party:  Defendant/Cross-Complainant Mark B. Barron

Responding Party:      Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Patricia Benston

Ruling: The motion is denied as procedurally improper. Defendant is reminded that this court requires an IDC prior to the filing of any discovery motion.

The proper way to challenge a demand for exchange of expert witnesses is to file a motion for protective order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.250, subd. (a) [“A party who has been served with a demand to exchange information concerning expert trial witnesses may promptly move for a protective order”]; Cottini v. Enloe Medical Center (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 401, 419.) The procedure of filing a motion for protective order is not “optional.” (Zellerino v. Brown (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1097, 1109 [noting that the discovery statute does not allow for a party to file an “objection” to a demand for exchange of experts].)

If defendant wishes to challenge the procedural propriety of plaintiff’s second demand for exchange of expert witness information, he must do so in a manner that is itself procedurally proper. This motion to “strike” the expert witness demand is denied. The parties are reminded that this court requires an IDC prior to the filing of any discovery motions. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.080.) Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Date: September 1, 2020

Honorable Stuart M. Rice

Judge of the Superior Court