This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/08/2016 at 19:36:18 (UTC).

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 Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1303

  • Filing Date:

    09/04/2013

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/28/2016
  • Notice of Designation of Record Filed by Appellant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/20/2016
  • Reply (IN SUPPORT OF MTN TO TAX ) Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/16/2016
  • Ntc to Atty re Notice of Appeal Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2016
  • Opposition (TO MTN TO TAX COSTS ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/29/2015
  • Notice (OF DEFAULT ON APPEAL ) Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2015
  • Notice of Designation of Record Filed by Appellant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2015
  • Proof of Service Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/16/2015
  • Proof of Service Filed by Appellant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2015
  • Notice (NOTICE OF DEFAULT UNLIMITED CIVIL APPEAL ) Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
121 More Docket Entries
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2013
  • NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE (OF DEMURRER ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2013
  • Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2013
  • Defendant's Demurrer (TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2013
  • Proof-Service/Summons Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2013
  • Statement-Case Management Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2013
  • Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2013
  • First Amended Complaint (VERIFIED ) Filed by Plaintiff & Plaintiff In Pro Per

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/04/2013
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less

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.