This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/02/2021 at 18:41:17 (UTC).

SHAOUL AMAR, ET AL VS HENRI RIC SHULLER, ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/31/2012 SHAOUL AMAR filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against HENRI RIC SHULLER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DONNA FIELDS GOLDSTEIN and WILLIAM D. STEWART. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9084

  • Filing Date:

    07/31/2012

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DONNA FIELDS GOLDSTEIN

WILLIAM D. STEWART

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

AMAR ALISA

AMAR SHAOUL

Defendants

PERTEL JOSEPH A.

SCHULLER HENRI RIC

SCHULLER JEFFREY SIMON

Assignees

SCHULLER & SCHULLER

KH CAPITAL LLC

Other

MANDALAY CORP.

Not Classified By Court

ASSIGNEE OF RECORD: KH CAPITAL LLC

SMART ATTORNEYS

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Not Classified By Court Attorneys

STONE & STONE

TOWNE RICHARD P

STONE STANLEY HAROLD

Defendant Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH A. PERTEL

ARTAN MICHAEL ESQ

JEFFREY S. SCHULLER ESQ.

JOSEPH A. PERTEL ESQ.

Assignee Attorneys

PERTEL JOSEPH ANDREW

SHEM-TOV SHALEM

Other Attorneys

LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM A. ORZEL

ORZEL WILLIAM ANDREW

 

Court Documents

Notice of Lien

12/10/2014: Notice of Lien

Judgment

2/9/2015: Judgment

Assignment of Judgment

3/3/2015: Assignment of Judgment

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATI...)

1/15/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATI...)

Assignment of Judgment

11/10/2020: Assignment of Judgment

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/12/2021
  • Hearing11/12/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department A at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502; Hearing on Motion to Quash MOTION TO RECALL AND QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS DOCUMENTS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2021
  • DocketNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO RECALL AND QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS DOCUMENTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF LESLIE RICHARDS; Filed by Shaoul Amar (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2021
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2021
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Vacate (/Set Aside Assignment of Judgment Filed by Pltff Shaoul Amar) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Vacate /Set Aside Assignment of Judgment...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2021
  • DocketReply (to Opposition to Motion to Set Aside Assignment of Judgment and Acknowledgment); Filed by Shaoul Amar (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2021
  • DocketOpposition (to Motion to Set Aside Assignment of Judgment); Filed by KH CAPITAL, LLC (Assignee)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2021
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (JPMorgan Chase Bank to Comply with Subpoena & Produce Docs Filed by Judgment Creditor KH Capital, LLC) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2021
  • DocketNotice (of Taking Motion to Compel Off Calendar); Filed by KH CAPITAL, LLC (Assignee)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
133 More Docket Entries
  • 08/31/2012
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Alisa Amar (Plaintiff); Shaoul Amar (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2012
  • DocketOpposition (TO DEFT PERTEL'S EX PARTE MOTION); Filed by Alisa Amar (Plaintiff); Shaoul Amar (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2012
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Joseph Andrew Pertel (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2012
  • DocketMotion to Compel; Filed by Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2012
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Alisa Amar (Plaintiff); Shaoul Amar (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2012
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Alisa Amar (Plaintiff); Shaoul Amar (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2012
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Alisa Amar (Plaintiff); Shaoul Amar (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2012
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2012
  • DocketNotice (of OSC re trial court delay reduction); Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2012
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: EC059084 Hearing Date: July 9, 2021 Dept: A

Motion to Set Aside Judgment, etc.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n

Calendar:

\r\n
\r\n

11

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

Case No.:

\r\n
\r\n

EC059084

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

Hearing Date:

\r\n
\r\n

July 09, 2021

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

Action Filed:

\r\n
\r\n

July 31, 2012

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

Trial Date:

\r\n
\r\n

Dismissed on September 24, 2014

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

\r\n
\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n

MP:

\r\n
\r\n

Plaintiff Shaoul Amar

\r\n
\r\n

RP:

\r\n
\r\n

Judgment Creditor KH Capital, LLC

\r\n
\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ALLEGATIONS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Shaoul Amar ("Shaoul") and Alisa Amar\r\n("Alisa", and together, "Plaintiffs") filed suit against Henri\r\nRic Schuller ("Henri"), Jeffrey Simon Schuller ("Jeffrey"),\r\nSchuller & Schuller ("S&S", and together with Henri and\r\nJeffrey, "Schuller Defendants"), and Joseph A. Pertel\r\n("Pertel", and collectively, "Defendants"), alleging that\r\nSchuller Defendants represented Marc and Jacqueline Fronen in a series of\r\nlawsuits against Plaintiffs despite a conflict of interest.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on July 31, 2012\r\nalleging three causes of action sounding in: (1) Legal Malpractice; (2) Breach\r\nof Fiduciary Duty; and (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The instant action was dismissed by the Court\r\non September 24, 2014.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

PRESENTATION:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court received the instant motion\r\nfiled by Shaoul on April 05, 2021; the opposition filed by Judgment Creditor KH\r\nCapital, LLC ("KH") on June 22, 2021; and the reply filed by Shaoul\r\non July 02, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

RELIEF REQUESTED:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Shaoul moves for an order setting aside the\r\njudgment, abstract of judgment, writ of execution, memorandum of costs after\r\njudgment, acknowledgement of credit, and declaration of accrued interest.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

DISCUSSION:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Standard of Review – Set Aside Judgment – CCP\r\n§ 473(d) provides: "The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or\r\nits own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered,\r\nso as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of\r\neither party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or\r\norder."

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Merits – Plaintiff argues that the\r\noriginal Assignment of Judgment filed by KH was filed by non-lawyer Adam Harari\r\non behalf of KH, a limited liability company. Plaintiff asserts that the\r\nassignment entered by the Court is thus void, as corporations and limited\r\nliability companies cannot represent themselves.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In opposition, KH argues that the Court cannot\r\nset aside the assignment simply because no attorney was involved in its\r\nnegotiation, drafting, or execution, and further, that setting aside the\r\nassignment would be futile because it would not invalidate the assignment\r\nitself.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On review of the case, the Court finds that the\r\nAcknowledgment of Assignment of Judgment was filed by KH on November 10, 2020\r\nwithout the representation of counsel. “A corporation cannot appear in court by\r\nan officer who is not an attorney and it cannot appear in propria persona.”\r\n(Paradise v. Nowlin (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 897, 898; see\r\nalso Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284\r\nn.5.) While KH is correct in that attorneys are not required for all\r\nnegotiation, drafting, or execution activities that a corporation may conduct,\r\na corporation is generally required to file documents with the Court through\r\ncounsel and cannot appear as a self-represented party. As it appears KH did not\r\nfile the Acknowledgment of Assignment of Judgment with representation, the\r\nfiling is not void because it is simply a matter of record, and the Court will\r\nthus deny the request for striking the Acknowledgment of Assignment of Judgment.\r\nHowever, any activity invoking the power of the court requires representation which\r\noccurred on Nov. 17, 2020. Therefore, the writ of execution is recalled and\r\nquashed.

\r\n\r\n

---

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In the event the parties submit on this\r\ntentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its\r\ndiscretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either\r\nelectronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s\r\nrecords.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ORDER

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Shaoul\r\nAmar\'s Motion to Set Aside came on regularly for hearing July 09, 2021, with\r\nappearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the\r\ncourt, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

THE\r\nMOTION IS GRANTED IN PART, AS SPECIFIED ABOVE.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

DATE: \r\n_______________ _______________________________

\r\n\r\n

\r\nJUDGE

'

Case Number: EC059084    Hearing Date: March 26, 2021    Dept: A

The Superior Court is open under “Here for You | Safe for You” Conditions and Orders

Counsel are urged to use remote appearance technology LACourtConnect

If it is indispensable for counsel to be present in court, face masks (without a valve) are mandated (unless a court orders otherwise) and social distancing rules are in force. Also, no eating or drinking is permitted in any public area of any courthouse.

 

 

Dept. A Burbank protocol for LACourtConnect Appearances.

Video Appearances: Since these are the functional equivalent of a personal appearance in court, no special protocols are in place at this time.

Audio Only Appearances.

1. Argument is limited to three minutes, unless the court grants a request for additional time.

2. The reading of argument is feckless and nugatory.

3. State your name at the beginning of all statements.

4. Do not speak directly to other counsel without permission of court.

5. Do not interrupt or attempt to speak over another speaker.

6. Do not announce your presence until called by your name or case name.

7. Take a deep breath frequently so that the court may interrupt your presentation, if necessary. (The system does not default to the court unless you are placed on mute by the court or go silent or mute on you own.)

8. Maintain silence in your surroundings – no keyboarding, dogs barking, children crying, etc.

FURTHER, the court makes available its Remote Audio Appearance Program (RAAP) service which enables any person with commonly available devices to listen to court proceedings which are otherwise open to the public. There is no cost for this service and no recording of any kind is permitted – such would be a violation of court rules and punishable as such.

Information is available at: http://www.lacourt.org/newsmedia/ui/CourtroomSeating.aspx

Amar v Shuller

Motion to Quash

Calendar:

08

Case No.:

EC059084

Hearing Date:

March 26, 2021

Action Filed:

July 31, 2012

Trial Date:

Dismissed on September 24, 2014

MP:

Non-Party Smart Attorneys, Inc.

RP:

Judgment Creditor KH Capital, LLC

ALLEGATIONS:

Shaoul Amar ("Shaoul") and Alisa Amar ("Alisa", and together, "Plaintiffs") filed suit against Henri Ric Schuller ("Henri"), Jeffrey Simon Schuller ("Jeffrey"), Schuller & Schuller ("S&S", and together with Henri and Jeffrey, "Schuller Defendants"), and Joseph A. Pertel ("Pertel", and collectively, "Defendants"), alleging that Schuller Defendants represented Marc and Jacqueline Fronen in a series of lawsuits against Plaintiffs despite a conflict of interest.

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on July 31, 2012 alleging three causes of action sounding in: (1) Legal Malpractice; (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

The instant action was dismissed by the Court on September 24, 2014.

PRESENTATION:

The Court received the instant motion filed by Non-Party Smart Attorneys, Inc. ("SAI") on January 29, 2021; the opposition filed by Judgment Creditor KH Capital, LLC ("KH") on March 15, 2021; and the reply filed by SAI on March 22, 2021.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

SAI moves for an order quashing certain deposition subpoenas for production of documents served by KH on JPMorgan Chase Bank ("Chase'"); in the alternative, SAI moves for a protective order regarding the same deposition subpoenas. (Although the motion states “Smart Attorneys, Inc.,etal.” Is/are moving, there is no indication who “etal.” represents.

DISCUSSION:

Standard of Review – Quash Subpoena – CCP § 1987.1 grants the trial court authority to quash a subpoena when necessary. CCP § 1987.1 provides: “If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”

Merits – The Court dismissed the instant action on September 24, 2014. Both SAI and KH contend that the Defendants in the action then obtained a judgment against Plaintiffs on February 09, 2015, and that Defendants subsequently assigned the judgment to KH on November 10, 2020.

SAI contends that KH served Chase with requests for document production on the following corporate entities: DAW Real Estate, Inc.; 29th Street Enterprises, Inc.; J & S Real Estate Investment, Inc.; She's Jealous, LLC; Smart Attorneys, Inc.; and Hazel Nut, Inc. SAI argues that none of the banking records for the aforementioned corporate entities are at issue and that the subpoenas are not likely to lead to relevant or admissible evidence because Plaintiff was sued as an individual.

In opposition, KH first argues that a motion to quash may only be brought by "a party, a witness, a consumer described in Section 1985.3 . . . ." pursuant to CCP § 1987.1, and so cannot be brought by SAI, which does not fall within these categories. KH also contends that Shaoul was an officer of each of the aforementioned corporate entities at the time the subpoena was served, and during the preceding four years before service of the subpoena. (Decl. Shem-Tov, ¶¶ 8-9.) KH argues that Shaoul's financial records are related to KH's attempts to enforce its judgment. KH further requests sanctions pursuant to CCP § 1987.2(a) in the amount of $1,200 against SAI. (Decl. Shem-Tov, ¶ 12.)

In reply, SAI questions the original Assignment of Judgment and objects to KH's inclusion of Shaoul's social security number at three locations in the opposition briefing. SAI contends that a subpoena for the personal records of Shaoul threatens the production of records from SAI.

As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that the instant motion is not a proper forum to question the original Assignment of Judgment. The Court further finds that SAI does not demonstrate standing to bring the instant motion pursuant to CCP § 1987.1, which provides, in relevant part:

(a) If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.

(b) The following persons may make a motion pursuant to subdivision (a):

(1) A party.

(2) A witness.

(3) A consumer described in Section 1985.3 .

(4) An employee described in Section 1985.6 . . . .

SAI does not argue it is a party to the action, a consumer, or a witness pursuant to CCP § 1987.1(b). The Court thus finds that SAI lacks standing to bring the instant motion.

Accordingly, the Court will deny the instant motion.

Sanctions – The Court may award sanctions pursuant to a motion made under CCP § 1987.1 in the amount of reasonable expenses made in making the motion if the Court finds that the motion was made in bad faith or without substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2.) The Court finds that, as the instant motion was made without standing, there existed no substantial justification in bringing the instant motion, and that monetary sanctions would be awarded to KH against SAI and SAI's counsel, jointly, in the requested amount of $1,200. (Decl. Shem-Tov, ¶ 12.)

The court also notes that documents filed with the court use a SSN which is not redacted. This is entirely improper, and the court is withdrawing these documents from public view. With this major defalcation, sanctions will be denied.

---

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Non-Party Smart Attorneys, Inc.'s Motion to Quash came on regularly for hearing on March 26, 2021, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION IS DENIED.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where KH Capital, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where MANDALAY CORP. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Orzel, William A