This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/28/2019 at 00:14:09 (UTC).

RYAN HARPER ET AL VS MANHATTAN INN OPERATING COMPANY LLC

Case Summary

On 01/07/2015 RYAN HARPER filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MANHATTAN INN OPERATING COMPANY LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MICHELLE R. ROSENBLATT, JAMES C. CHALFANT and SUZANNE G. BRUGUERA. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8691

  • Filing Date:

    01/07/2015

  • 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 Judges

MICHELLE R. ROSENBLATT

JAMES C. CHALFANT

SUZANNE G. BRUGUERA

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

HARPER BARBARA

HARPER RYAN

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 24

MANHATTAN INN OPERATING COMPANY LLC

PREFERRED BANK

PROMENADE RESTAURANT GROUP LLC

STRAIN JOHN

STRAIN JOHN A. LAW OFFICES OF

ZISLIS GROUP INC THE

ZISLIS MICHAEL

ZISLIS DAVID

STEVEN M. PICO REVOCABLE TRUST

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

HARPER BARBARA S. APLC

HARPER BARBARA SULLIVAN

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

JOANNE M. FRASCA

HIRANO RONALD M. ESQ.

STRAIN JOHN A. ESQ.

FRASCA JOANNE M.

HIRANO RONALD MASARU

ADAMEC JUSTENE MARIE

 

Court Documents

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

12/13/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

5/18/2020: Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award

Declaration - DECLARATION BARBARA HARPER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER RE CLAIMANTS' INABILITY TO PAY ARB FEES & COSTS

9/23/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION BARBARA HARPER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER RE CLAIMANTS' INABILITY TO PAY ARB FEES & COSTS

Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER MOTION FOR ORDER RE CLAIMANTS' INABILITY TO PAY ARB FEES & COSTS

9/23/2019: Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER MOTION FOR ORDER RE CLAIMANTS' INABILITY TO PAY ARB FEES & COSTS

Joinder - JOINDER IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION SEEKING ORDER REGARDING FURTHER ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS; SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

10/2/2019: Joinder - JOINDER IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION SEEKING ORDER REGARDING FURTHER ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS; SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

10/21/2019: Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION FOR ORDER MOTION SEEKING...)

12/11/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION FOR ORDER MOTION SEEKING...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AS TO BC721174; STATUS CONFERENCE)

6/18/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AS TO BC721174; STATUS CONFERENCE)

NOTICE OF RULING

1/25/2018: NOTICE OF RULING

Minute Order -

4/29/2015: Minute Order -

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

5/13/2015: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

Minute Order -

6/1/2015: Minute Order -

Minute Order -

12/22/2015: Minute Order -

NOTICE OF FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE RE ARBITRATION

1/26/2016: NOTICE OF FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE RE ARBITRATION

Minute Order -

5/10/2016: Minute Order -

SUMMONS -

5/13/2016: SUMMONS -

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY DEFENDANT DAVID ZISLIS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO STAY PROCEEDINGS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF PAUL ROS

6/10/2016: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY DEFENDANT DAVID ZISLIS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO STAY PROCEEDINGS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF PAUL ROS

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT

6/22/2016: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT

142 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/28/2020
  • Hearing09/28/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 40 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2020
  • Docketat 4:28 PM in Department 40; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/19/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Non-Appearance Case Review) of 05/19/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2020
  • DocketPetition to Confirm Arbitration Award; Filed by Manhattan Inn Operating Company, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 40; Post-Arbitration Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2020
  • Docketat 11:03 AM in Department 40; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Non-Appearance Case Review) of 04/15/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 40; Post-Arbitration Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
274 More Docket Entries
  • 02/05/2015
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Ryan Harper (Plaintiff); Barbara Harper (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2015
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Ryan Harper (Plaintiff); Barbara Harper (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2015
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2015
  • DocketPEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV. PROC., 170.6)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2015
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2015
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2015
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2015
  • DocketCOMPLAINT: 1. ACTUAL FRAUD; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/07/2015
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Ryan Harper (Plaintiff); Barbara Harper (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2010
  • DocketNotice of Hearing; Filed by Manhattan Inn Operating Company, LLC (Defendant); Zislis Group, Inc, The (Defendant); Promenade Restaurant Group, LLC (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC568691    Hearing Date: December 11, 2019    Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Ryan Harper and Barbara Harper

OPPOSITION: Defendants Manhattan Inn Operating Company, LLC, Promenade Restaurant Group, LLC, The Zislis Group, Inc., John Strain and Law Office of John Strain.

On October 16, 2019, the Court denied without prejudice, Plaintiffs’ prior motion regarding their ability to pay further arbitration costs. Plaintiffs file this renewed motion stating that they are unable to continue paying for arbitration and request an order that defendants pay their arbitration costs or, if defendants are unwilling to pay said costs, to proceed further in this court.

Standard: The case cited by the parties is Weiler v. Marcus & Milichap Real Estate Investment Service, Inc. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 970. In Weiler, the court held that:

“when a party who has engaged in arbitration in good faith is unable to afford to continue in such a forum, that party may seek relief from the superior court. If sufficient evidence is presented on these issues, and the court concludes the party’s financial status is not a result of the party’s intentional attempt to avoid arbitration, the court may issue an order specifying: (1) the arbitration shall continue so long as the other party to the arbitration agrees to pay, or the arbitrator orders it to pay, all fees and costs of the arbitration; and (2) if neither of those occur, the arbitration shall be deemed “had” and the case may proceed in the superior court.

(Id. at 981.)

Analysis: As requested at the October hearing, Plaintiffs have filed additional information about their income. Defendants dispute that Plaintiffs have provided sufficient information and argue that Plaintiffs are concealing settlement funds they received from one of the defendants, Michael Greenberg. The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ documents and determines that they have sufficiently demonstrated an inability to continue paying for arbitration. (See Ryan Harper Decl.; Barbara Harper Decl.;Plaintiffs’ Reply, Ex. A.) The Court also determines that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that either party acted in bad faith during arbitration. The Court finds that as per Weiler, Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing that they engaged in arbitration in good faith and cannot afford to continue.

The issue that the Court has with plaintiffs’ request is that it appears that plaintiffs are seeking to relitigate the entire case.

On November 1, 2019, the arbitrator issued an interim award in which they denied Plaintiffs’ claims and denied their motion for reconsideration regarding the statute of limitations. (Strain Decl., Ex. A, Pg. 15.) The only outstanding issue appears to be a determination of Defendants’ attorneys’ fees and costs.

However, in an August email to JAMS, Plaintiffs requested a cost estimate for a motion for reconsideration, appeals, and leave to amend to add a RICO cause of action. Plaintiffs also request that the July 2019 merits hearing be reopened because they allege Defendants threatened a witness. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that they learned of new causes of action at the July hearing.

The arbitration has been ongoing since 2015 and appears to have been completed.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs efforts to relitigate the order are distinguishable from Weiler because in that case arbitration was ongoing.

In this case, the arbitration will only continue if plaintiffs file additional motions seeking to challenge the previous arbitration orders or adding entirely new causes of action. It is unclear why these new causes of action were only discovered years after the commencement of arbitration.

Additionally, the Court has no way of proving or disproving that defendants threatened a witness.

However, the Court is willing to order that defendants pay for all the costs for the attorneys’ fees motion to complete the arbitration.

Conclusion: Plaintiffs’ Motion is Denied.