THE CHIEF MOVIE LLC VS ROBERT FEINSTEIN ET AL
Case Summary
On 10/19/2015 THE CHIEF MOVIE LLC filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against ROBERT FEINSTEIN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ROBERT L. HESS. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details
-
Case Number:
****8406
-
Filing Date:
10/19/2015
-
Case Status:
Pending - Other Pending
-
Court:
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
-
Courthouse:
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
-
County, State:
Los Angeles, California
Judge Details
Presiding Judge
ROBERT L. HESS
Party Details
Plaintiffs and Petitioners
CHIEF MOVIE LLC THE
THE CHIEF MOVIE LLC
Defendants and Respondents
CELEBRITY HOME ENTERTAINMENT INC.
CELEBRITY VIDEO DISTRIBUTION INC.
DOES 1-50
EYE FILM RELEASING INC.
FEINSTEIN ROBERT
Attorney/Law Firm Details
Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys
ARCHINACO / BRACKEN LLC
CHANDLER LAW FIRM
CHANDLER PAUL W
ARCHINACO JASON A
Defendant Attorneys
MYRNA FEINSTEIN TRUSTEE OF THE FEINTEINS
FISHER ALEXANDER J ESQ.
ROBERT FEINTEIN.TRUSTEE OF THE FEINTEIN
Court Documents
4/25/2018: NOTICE OF REJECTION OF APPLICATION AND ORDER FOR SERVICE ON THE SECRETARY OF STATE-CORPS; LLCS; LPS
5/8/2018: Minute Order
10/16/2018: Notice of Rejection - Fax Filing
10/23/2018: Minute Order
5/17/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
5/17/2019: Proof of Personal Service
5/17/2019: Proof of Personal Service
10/19/2015: COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT; ETC
2/23/2016: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
8/4/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
8/4/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
8/4/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
8/4/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
11/17/2016: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER OF DEFENDANTS ROBERT FEINSTEIN AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE FIENSTEIN LIVING TRUST, MYRNA FEINSTEIN AS TRUSTEE OF THE FIENSTEIN LIVING TRUST, AND EYE FILM
12/23/2016: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM ADDESS AND CONTACT INFORMATION
4/4/2017: Minute Order
5/9/2017: REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
8/1/2017: MEMO COSTS SUMMARY
Docket Entries
- 06/07/2019
-
Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by Clerk
- 05/21/2019
-
at 08:30 AM in Department 24; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (/Entry of Default) - Held - Continued
- 05/21/2019
-
Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal /Entry of Default)); Filed by Clerk
- 05/17/2019
-
Proof of Personal Service; Filed by Celebrity Video Distribution, Inc. (Defendant)
- 05/17/2019
-
Proof of Personal Service; Filed by The Chief Movie, LLC (Plaintiff)
- 05/17/2019
-
Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by The Chief Movie, LLC (Plaintiff)
- 04/05/2019
-
at 08:30 AM in Department 24; Order to Show Cause Re: (Default Judgment) - Held
- 04/05/2019
-
Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment)); Filed by Clerk
- 03/05/2019
-
at 08:30 AM in Department 24; Order to Show Cause Re: (Default Judgment) - Held - Continued
- 03/05/2019
-
Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment)); Filed by Clerk
- 05/05/2016
-
Minute order entered: 2016-05-05 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk
- 02/25/2016
-
at 08:30 AM in Department 24; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Proceeding continued) -
- 02/25/2016
-
Minute order entered: 2016-02-25 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk
- 02/25/2016
-
Minute Order
- 02/23/2016
-
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
- 10/27/2015
-
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk
- 10/27/2015
-
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
- 10/19/2015
-
Complaint; Filed by Chief Movie, LLC, The (Plaintiff)
- 10/19/2015
-
COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT; ETC
- 10/19/2015
-
SUMMONS
Tentative Rulings
Case Number: BC598406 Hearing Date: August 07, 2020 Dept: 24
Plaintiff’s default judgment application is GRANTED.
The Court reviewed Plaintiff’s default judgment packet. The Court finds that the previously identified issues have been addressed, and will enter judgment in conformity with the packet. Specifically, the Court will enter judgment against Defendants Celebrity Video Distribution Inc. and Celebrity Home Entertainment Inc., jointly and severally, as follows:
Economic: $ 246,728.00
Interest: $193,100.04
Costs: $ 915.00
TOTAL: $ 439,828.04
Case Number: BC598406 Hearing Date: February 28, 2020 Dept: 24
Plaintiff’s default judgment application is DENIED without prejudice.
Plaintiff submitted a doe dismissal on February 18, 2020, which only addresses one issue with the packet. The Court notes the following issues still persist.
The request for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages will not be awarded. Even if evidence demonstrated punitive damages were appropriate, there is no evidence regarding Defendants’ ability to pay. (See Cummings Medical Corp v. Occupational Medical Corp. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1291 [some measure of the effect of a punitive damages award in terms of deterrence is required before punitive damages may be awarded in a default judgment].)
The request for $250,000.00 is not supported by the SAC, since it acknowledges credits. The SAC alleges that there were 4 payments of $818.00 made on the $250,000.00 owing under the contract. (SAC ¶¶ 52-54.) Further, the declaration notes that the breach did not occur until approximately March 2013, which supports the SAC’s allegations that payments were made. (Chaffee Decl., ¶ 12.) Plaintiff should account for these credits and make corresponding corrections to the interest.
Case Number: BC598406 Hearing Date: December 19, 2019 Dept: 24
Plaintiff’s default judgment application is DENIED without prejudice.
The Court notes the following issues.
The request for $1,000,000.00 in punitive damages will not be awarded. Even if evidence demonstrated punitive damages were appropriate, there is no evidence regarding Defendants’ ability to pay. (See Cummings Medical Corp v. Occupational Medical Corp. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1291 [some measure of the effect of a punitive damages award in terms of deterrence is required before punitive damages may be awarded in a default judgment].)
The request for $250,000.00 is not supported by the SAC, since it acknowledges credits. The SAC alleges that there were 4 payments of $818.00 made on the $250,000.00 owing under the contract. (SAC ¶¶ 52-54.) Further, the declaration notes that the breach did not occur until approximately March 2013, which supports the SAC’s allegations that payments were made. (Chaffee Decl., ¶ 12.) Plaintiff should account for these credits and make corresponding corrections to the interest.
The remaining doe defendants have not been dismissed. Plaintiff should file a request for dismissal regarding all unnamed does.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases