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 WILLIAM D. STEWART and DONNA FIELDS GOLDSTEIN. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Disposed - Dismissed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
WILLIAM D. STEWART
DONNA FIELDS GOLDSTEIN
PERTEL JOSEPH A.
SCHULLER HENRI RIC
SCHULLER JEFFREY SIMON
SCHULLER & SCHULLER
KH CAPITAL LLC
ASSIGNEE OF RECORD: KH CAPITAL LLC
STONE & STONE
STONE STANLEY HAROLD
LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH A. PERTEL
ARTAN MICHAEL ESQ
JOSEPH A. PERTEL ESQ.
JEFFREY S. SCHULLER ESQ.
PERTEL JOSEPH ANDREW
TOWNE RICHARD P
LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM A. ORZEL
ORZEL WILLIAM ANDREW
12/10/2014: Notice of Lien
3/3/2015: Assignment of Judgment
1/15/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATI...)
11/10/2020: Assignment of Judgment
1/13/2015: Request For Copies
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Quash (Subpoena Filed by Third Party Witnesses Smart Attys, Inc., et. al.) - Held - Motion DeniedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Quash Subpoena Filed by Third Party Witn...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:20 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order re Sealing 3/15/2021 JUDGMENT CREDITOR?S OPPOSIT...) of 03/25/2021); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order re Sealing 3/15/2021 JUDGMENT CREDITOR?S OPPOSIT...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketReply (Re: Motion To Recall and Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of business Documents); Filed by Smart Attorneys (Non-Party)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMotion to Recall and Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Documents; Filed by Smart Attorneys (Non-Party)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination (as to Shaoul Amar) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examinati...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by KH CAPITAL, LLC (Assignee)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute order entered: 2012-08-31 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOpposition; Filed by Alisa Amar (Plaintiff); Shaoul Amar (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDeclaration; Filed by Joseph Andrew Pertel (Attorney)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMotion to Compel; Filed by DefendantRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Alisa Amar (Plaintiff); Shaoul Amar (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Alisa Amar (Plaintiff); Shaoul Amar (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Alisa Amar (Plaintiff); Shaoul Amar (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice; Filed by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
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
March 26, 2021
July 31, 2012
Dismissed on September 24, 2014
Non-Party Smart Attorneys, Inc.
Judgment Creditor KH Capital, LLC
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: _______________ _______________________________
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases