This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/05/2019 at 09:38:10 (UTC).

PAUL KRZEMUSKI VS GEORGE ZAKHARIA ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/14/2015 PAUL KRZEMUSKI filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against GEORGE ZAKHARIA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARK A. BORENSTEIN, SAMANTHA P. JESSNER, RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK, HOLLY E. KENDIG and ELAINE LU. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7883

  • Filing Date:

    10/14/2015

  • 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

MARK A. BORENSTEIN

SAMANTHA P. JESSNER

RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK

HOLLY E. KENDIG

ELAINE LU

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

KRZEMUSKI PAUL

VIOLETTE ADAMIAN 2013 FAMILY TRUST

KRYSTAL BIOCHEMICAL CORP.

NATALIA KRZEMUSKI

KRZEMUSKI NATALIA

Plaintiff and Petitioner

VIOLETTE ADAMIAN 2013 FAMILY TRUST

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 10

ZAKHARIA GEORGE

ZAKHARIA HODA

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

ZAKHARIA GEORGE

ZAKHARIA HODA

Not Classified By Court

BLAIR BETTY

FRIEDMAN ESQ. BRUCE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF JULIE C. LIM

BRADPIECE JEFFREY ESQ.

POTEET LAWRENCE JAY ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

POLK CHRISTOPHER ESQ.

POLK CHRISTOPHER

PERRY ROSARIO ESQ.

PERRY ESQ. ROSARIO

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

4/13/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF ERRATA TO DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS' VERIFIED ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPULSORY CROSS-COMPLAINT

7/23/2018: NOTICE OF ERRATA TO DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS' VERIFIED ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPULSORY CROSS-COMPLAINT

Case Management Statement

3/6/2019: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

5/6/2019: Minute Order

Declaration

5/30/2019: Declaration

Declaration

5/30/2019: Declaration

Objection

6/21/2019: Objection

Memorandum

6/28/2019: Memorandum

ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER AFTER HEARING (SUPERIOR COURT)

12/22/2015: ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER AFTER HEARING (SUPERIOR COURT)

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

2/4/2016: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

CIVIL DEPOSIT

2/11/2016: CIVIL DEPOSIT

Proof of Service

5/5/2016: Proof of Service

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

1/10/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

DEFENDANTS' AND CROSS COMPLAINANTS' GEORGE ZAKHARIA AND HODA ZAKHARIA'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF ORIGINAL DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS

1/13/2017: DEFENDANTS' AND CROSS COMPLAINANTS' GEORGE ZAKHARIA AND HODA ZAKHARIA'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF ORIGINAL DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS

DEFENDANTS' AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS' GEORGE AND HODA ZAKHARIAS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1/13/2017: DEFENDANTS' AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS' GEORGE AND HODA ZAKHARIAS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT.

2/1/2017: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT.

ORDER

6/30/2017: ORDER

DISCLOSURES FOR REFEREE BRUCE A. FRIEDMAN

10/11/2017: DISCLOSURES FOR REFEREE BRUCE A. FRIEDMAN

235 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/02/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (to Order Dissolving Preliminary Injunction); Filed by Paul Krzemuski (Plaintiff); Violette Adamian 2013 Family Trust (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (Dissolve Preliminary Injunction) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion - Other Dissolve Preliminary Injunction)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2019
  • Memorandum (of Points and Authorities in Reply and Opposition to Defendants' Request for Discovery Sanctions); Filed by Paul Krzemuski (Plaintiff); Violette Adamian 2013 Family Trust (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2019
  • Declaration (of Lawrence J. Poteet in Reply/Opposition to Defendants' Request for Monetary Discovery Sanctions); Filed by Paul Krzemuski (Plaintiff); Violette Adamian 2013 Family Trust (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2019
  • Declaration (of Jerald E. Gale in Reply/Opposition to Defendants' Request for Monetary Discovery Sanctions); Filed by Paul Krzemuski (Plaintiff); Violette Adamian 2013 Family Trust (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2019
  • Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CSR: Mark Schweitzer/ #10514); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2019
  • Reply (to Defendants' "Objection" to Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction); Filed by Paul Krzemuski (Plaintiff); Violette Adamian 2013 Family Trust (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2019
  • Opposition (of George Zakharia's to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production Set 4 and Request for Sanctions Against Plaintiff and His Attorneys for $4,780); Filed by George Zakharia (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2019
  • Opposition (of Hoda Zakharia's to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production Set 4 and Request for Sanctions Against Plaintiff and His Attorneys for $4,780); Filed by Hoda Zakharia (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
486 More Docket Entries
  • 11/16/2015
  • Answer; Filed by George Zakharia (Defendant); Hoda Zakharia (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2015
  • SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2015
  • Summons; Filed by Cross-Complainant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2015
  • VERIFIED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2015
  • VERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT TO QUIET TITLE, CANCEL DEEDS, AND FOR DAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2015
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2015
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2015
  • COMPLAINT FOR QUIET TITLE

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC597883    Hearing Date: March 06, 2020    Dept: 47

Paul Krzemuski, Trustee of the Violette Krzemuski aka Violette Adamian 2013 Family Trust v. George Zakharia,

et al.

MOTION TO TAX COSTS, INCLUDING POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST, COSTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES, WITH A REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST GEORGE ZAKHARIA, HODA ZAKHARIA, AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD, SELENA ROJHANI AND THE ROJHANI LAW GROUP

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Paul Krzemuski, Trustee of the Violet Krzemuski, aka Violette Adamian 2013 Family Trust; and Attorney Robert Scott Shtofman

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants/Cross-Complainants George Zakharia and Hoda Zakharia

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an action to quiet title by adverse possession.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Paul Krzemuski and his attorney, Robert Scott Shtofman, move to tax costs, based upon a previous sanctions order, which apparently has been reduced to a judgment.

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion to tax costs is GRANTED as to Item No. 1 (a)(7). It is DENIED as to Item Nos. 1 (a)(1) and (2). Court will hear argument as to Item 1(a) (5), as well as to the claim for “accrued interest due.”

The Court will also hear argument as to the requests for monetary sanctions by the moving parties.

DISCUSSION:

The Court has read and considered the various pleadings filed in connection in this matter. Suffice it to state, this Court has never ever seen such a situation. This Court has grave concerns about the legality and/or appropriateness of claiming “costs” of $11,500 in attorney’s fees in a Memorandum of Costs, under the facts and circumstances of this case. An award of post-judgment attorney’s fees must first be reasonable, and moreover, they can only be awarded “if the underlying judgment includes an award of attorney’s fees to the judgment creditor pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 1033.5.” CCP §685.040. Is this the case here? This Court thinks not.

The “judgment” at issue at this point is the previous award of monetary sanctions. Is that a judgment in which attorney’s fees were “included” under a “contract,” as opposed to by “statute” or “law?” This Court agrees with the moving parties’ arguments contained in pages 11-13 of its moving papers as to the issue of attorney’s fees.

Accordingly, the motion to tax costs is GRANTED as to Item No. 1 (a)(7).

Be that as it may, this Court recognizes that it may be proper for a judgment creditor to claim certain “reasonable and necessary costs” associated with post-judgment efforts to collect a judgment, when the judgment debtors continue to flatly refuse to simply satisfy the judgment, such as for some of the other costs claimed. However, the issue of the levying officer’s fees of $2,000 is subject to debate, as to whether they both properly authorized and were “reasonable and necessary,” in this case.

The costs claimed in Item Nos. 1 (a)(1) and (2) certainly appear “reasonable and necessary” to this Court. The moving parties have not demonstrated otherwise, and its their burden to do so. 612 South LLC v. Laconic Limited Partnership (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1285.) [On a motion to tax costs, “the verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of their propriety, and the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show they were not reasonable or necessary.”]

Accordingly, the motion to tax costs is DENIED as to Item Nos. 1 (a)(1) and (2).

This Court will hear argument as to Item 1(a) (5) as to whether that particular cost was “reasonable and necessarily” incurred or not.

This Court will also hear argument as to whether the claimed “accrued interest remaining due” [$835.00] is appropriate or not, or even subject to a motion to tax costs.

Last, the Court will hear argument as to the requests for monetary sanctions by the moving parties. Zealous representation is one thing. Extreme “hardball” tactics and frivolous misuse of the post-judgment remedies are another.

Moving party to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2020 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court

Smcdept47@lacourt.org