This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/30/2019 at 03:13:35 (UTC).

PRESERVATION FINANCE,REHAB, ETAL VS ASSOC FINANCIAL CORP

Case Summary

On 07/31/2015 PRESERVATION FINANCE,REHAB, ETAL filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against ASSOC FINANCIAL CORP. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is NANCY L. NEWMAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4545

  • Filing Date:

    07/31/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

NANCY L. NEWMAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

PRESERVATION FINANCE REHAB & DEVELOPMENT

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

ASSOC FINANCIAL CORPORATION

MANGEMENT ASSITANCE GROUP INC

BLD COMPANY LLC

Cross Defendants

PL ACQUISITION INC.

PENN LAWRENCE F.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

BARNES ROBERT W.

Defendant Attorneys

JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL

MANGELS ROBERT EDWIN

Cross Defendant Attorneys

MOK FRANNIE SAU-LING

REED SMITH LLP

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

9/29/2015: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

Legacy Document

11/18/2016: Legacy Document

Minute Order

12/13/2016: Minute Order

Legacy Document

1/6/2017: Legacy Document

Summons

3/14/2017: Summons

Legacy Document

6/6/2017: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

9/14/2017: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

9/20/2017: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

9/20/2017: Legacy Document

Minute Order

9/27/2017: Minute Order

Legacy Document

10/27/2017: Legacy Document

Case Management Statement

11/30/2017: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

12/13/2017: Minute Order

Legacy Document

3/28/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

4/9/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

4/13/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

6/26/2018: Legacy Document

Declaration

7/20/2018: Declaration

88 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/14/2019
  • at 08:59 AM in Department P; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department O; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2019
  • Notice (of Ruling at Case Management Conference and Setting of Trial); Filed by PRESERVATION,FINANCE REHAB & DEVELOPMENT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by PRESERVATION,FINANCE REHAB & DEVELOPMENT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2018
  • Notice (of Entry Of Order); Filed by BLD Company, LLC (Defendant); ASSOC FINANCIAL CORPORATION (Defendant); MANGEMENT ASSITANCE GROUP, INC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2018
  • at 1:30 PM in Department P; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2018
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order re: Peremptory Challenge to Judicial Officer (Co...) of 12/10/2018); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2018
  • Minute Order ((Court Order re: Peremptory Challenge to Judicial Officer (Co...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2018
  • Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by PRESERVATION,FINANCE REHAB & DEVELOPMENT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
198 More Docket Entries
  • 09/29/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2015
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by PRESERVATION,FINANCE REHAB & DEVELOPMENT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2015
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by PRESERVATION,FINANCE REHAB & DEVELOPMENT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by PRESERVATION,FINANCE REHAB & DEVELOPMENT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2015
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by PRESERVATION,FINANCE REHAB & DEVELOPMENT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2015
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by PRESERVATION,FINANCE REHAB & DEVELOPMENT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2015
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by PRESERVATION,FINANCE REHAB & DEVELOPMENT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2015
  • Summons; Filed by PRESERVATION,FINANCE REHAB & DEVELOPMENT (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2015
  • Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC124545    Hearing Date: June 26, 2020    Dept: O

 Cross-defendants PL Acquisition, Inc. and Lawrence Penn’s motion in limine No. 1 is granted in part.  No witness my offer a lay or expert opinion that the monies paid to Mr. Penn violated paragraph 11 of the Consent Judgment in USDC Case no. C97-1704 SC.  That legal conclusion will be for the Court to decide based on the evidence presented in this trial.  Moreover, like Judge Conte stated, the Court agrees the plain reading of paragraph 11 shows the so called “suspension” of payments is limited to “projects owned operated or controlled by the AFC Defendants or the Penn Defendants or any of their affiliates.”  Likewise, no witness may offer any lay or expert opinion of what is,or is not, an illegal “kickback, fee splits or payments of a similar payment.”  If relevant, counsel shall  give the Court the citations to the legal authority that defines such illegal payments.  The percipient witness may testify about the discussions of what payments, if any, were agreed (or not) to be paid to Mr. Penn in connection with the oral agreement, and the facts showing such payments, if any. The Court will likely need more of an offer of proof to determine under Evidence Code §352 whether the number of witnesses and specific scope of their anticipated testimony should be limited.
Finally, AFC and BLD seem to assume that if the Court finds the payments to Mr. Penn were illegal, the Court must find the oral agreement to be unenforceable.  Not so.  There are exceptions to the general rule against enforcing contracts founded on illegal consideration.  See e.g. Kyablue v. Watkins (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1288, 1292-93; Norwood v. Judd (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 276, 284. The probative value such evidence, therefore, may not be as compelling as counsel assumes.