PETER KLEIDMAN VS. RFF FAMILY PARTNERSHIP,L.P. ET. AL.
Case Summary
On 09/04/2013 PETER KLEIDMAN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against RFF FAMILY PARTNERSHIP,L P. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF, LAWRENCE CHO and RICHARD A. STONE. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Case Details
-
Case Number:
****1303
-
Filing Date:
09/04/2013
-
Case Status:
Disposed - Judgment Entered
-
Court:
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
-
Courthouse:
Santa Monica Courthouse
-
County, State:
Los Angeles, California
Judge Details
Presiding Judges
MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF
LAWRENCE CHO
RICHARD A. STONE
Party Details
Plaintiff
KLEIDMAN PETER
Defendants
CHICAGO TILE COMPANY
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.
RFF FAMILY PARTNERSHIP L.P.
Attorney/Law Firm Details
Defendant Attorneys
BRYAN CAVE LLP
PARCELLS & ASSOCIATES
PARCELLS III DAYTON B.
FIDELITY NATIONAL LAW GROUP
Court Documents
Court documents are not available for this case.
Docket Entries
- 02/05/2016
-
Ntc to Reptr/Mon to Prep Transcrpt Filed by Clerk
- 01/28/2016
-
Notice of Designation of Record Filed by Appellant
- 01/20/2016
-
Reply (IN SUPPORT OF MTN TO TAX ) Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per
- 01/16/2016
-
Ntc to Atty re Notice of Appeal Filed by Clerk
- 01/13/2016
-
Opposition (TO MTN TO TAX COSTS ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant
- 12/29/2015
-
Notice (OF DEFAULT ON APPEAL ) Filed by Clerk
- 12/16/2015
-
Notice of Designation of Record Filed by Appellant
- 12/16/2015
-
Proof of Service Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per
- 12/16/2015
-
Proof of Service Filed by Appellant
- 12/03/2015
-
Notice (NOTICE OF DEFAULT UNLIMITED CIVIL APPEAL ) Filed by Clerk
- 12/23/2013
-
Request for Entry of Default (DEFAULT ENTERED AS TO DEFENDANT CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY "BY FAX" NO CONFORMING COPY, SELF ADDRESSED STAMPED ENVELOPE OR ATTORNEY SLIP SUBMITTED WITH DEFAULT) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
- 12/18/2013
-
NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE (OF DEMURRER ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant
- 12/13/2013
-
Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney for Defendant
- 12/09/2013
-
Defendant's Demurrer (TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant
- 12/09/2013
-
Request for Judicial Notice (IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.'S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant
- 12/02/2013
-
Proof-Service/Summons Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per
- 12/02/2013
-
Statement-Case Management Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per
- 11/25/2013
-
Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney for Defendant
- 11/08/2013
-
First Amended Complaint (VERIFIED ) Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per
- 09/04/2013
-
Complaint Filed
Tentative Rulings
Case Number: SC121303 Hearing Date: November 19, 2019 Dept: P
TENTATIVE RULING
Peter Kleidman v. RFF Family Partnership, L.P. et al., Case No. SC121303
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Costs
Hearing Date November 19, 2019
On August 12, 2015 this court awarded $41,200.00 in attorney’s fees to defendant RFF Family Partnership, L.P. The Court of Appeal affirmed on July 10, 2018. Plaintiff moves to strike the award on the grounds that the court improperly considered “the extent of discovery required,” an issue allegedly not raised in RFF’s moving papers.
A party may move for reconsideration of a court’s order based upon “new or different facts, circumstances, or law[.]” Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §1008. A motion for reconsideration brought more than ten days after notice of the order is served is untimely. Id. Pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §663, a “judgment or decree” based upon an erroneous or incorrect legal basis can be set aside at any time by the issuing court upon motion of the aggrieved party.
Plaintiff’s motion (filed on December 11, 2018) seeks reconsideration of a 2015 order. Plaintiff does not offer any new facts, circumstances, or law, and the motion is untimely by over two years. This motion fails under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §1008.
The motion fails if construed as a motion to set aside under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §663, since the targeted ruling is an award of attorney’s fees, not a judgment or decree. Defendant’s due process argument also fails. Plaintiff’s arguments were fully heard and rejected by the Court of Appeal; that determination is final.
Motion DENIED.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases