On 05/22/2014 TRUE HARMONY INC filed a Contract - Professional Negligence lawsuit against ROSARIO PERRY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are TERESA SANCHEZ-GORDON, BARBARA A. MEIERS and YOLANDA OROZCO. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Disposed - Dismissed
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
BARBARA A. MEIERS
TRUE HARMONY INC.
DOES 1 TO 10
HOPE PARK LOFTS 2001-02910056 LLC
ROSARIO PERRY ATTORNEYS
ATTORNEYS ROSARIO PERRY
ROSARIO PERRY J OF
BIMHF LLC J OF
PERRY ROSARIO J OF
1130 SOUTH HOPE STREET INVESTMENT ASSO
SHAWN MANSHOORY J OF
SOLOMON NORMAN JUDGMENT OF
1130 HOPE STREET INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES D
THOMAS JEFFREY G. ESQ.
HOWARD LISA M. ESQ.
GIBSON HUGH JOHN LAW OFFICES OF
CHUCK STEPHEN C. ESQ.
HOWARD LISA M.
ROSARIO PERRY A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
PONGRACZ ANDREW C.
12/20/2017: ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER -
2/1/2018: NOTICE OF DEFAULT
3/18/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)
4/27/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
7/11/2016: Minute Order -
7/19/2016: DEFENDANT BIMHF, LLC'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF LX PARTE APPLICATION
7/19/2016: DECLARATION OF ANDREW PONGRACZ
7/21/2016: NOTICE OF RULING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION OF DEFENDANT BIMHF, LLC; ETC.
8/10/2016: DECLARATION OF ROSARIO PERRY IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DECLARE ROSARIO PERRY VEXATIOUS LITIGATION PARTY; AND IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT PERRY'S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS.
11/15/2016: DEFENDANT ROSARIO PERRY'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE; ETC
11/17/2016: DEFENDANT ROSARIO PERRY'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF REPLY BRIEF FOR SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
11/21/2016: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT BIMHF, LLC'S MOTION TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST BIMHF, LLC AND ALNDREW PONGRACZ, ESQ. IN THE PMOUNT OF FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS ($4000) UNDER
3/29/2017: REPLY OF DEFENDANTS NORMAN SOLOMON, HOPE PARK LOFTS 2001-02910056 LLC AND 1130 HOPE STREET INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES, LLC TO OPPOSITION TO THEIR DEMURRERS; ETC.
4/7/2017: Minute Order -
5/19/2017: JUDGMENT DISMISSING COMPLAINT OF TRUE HARMONY AS TO DEFENDANTS ROSARIO PERRY AND ROSARIO PERRY, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
6/19/2017: DEFENDANT SHAWN MANSHOORY'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT -
9/25/2017: EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON UNFOUNDED "MOTION TO RECONSIDER...."; ETC
10/30/2017: ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS NORMAN SOLOMAN'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (CCP 128.7)
Docketat 3:00 PM in Department 31, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Sanctions - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 2:00 PM in Department 31, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Sanctions - Held - Motion DeniedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Sanctions)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMemorandum (of Points and Authorities in Oppposition to Motion for Sanctions -[Hrg: 09/21/2020]); Filed by Solomon, Norman (JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL) (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketRequest for Judicial Notice (-[Hrg: 09/21/2020]); Filed by Solomon, Norman (JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL) (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketObjection (of Norman Solomon and Hugh John Gibson to Plaintilffs Request for Judicl Notice -[Hrg: 09/21/2020]); Filed by Solomon, Norman (JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL) (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)]); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:08 AM in Department 31, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 07/16/2020); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL CIVILRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute order entered: 2014-08-06 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketMotion to Be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by True Harmony (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSELCIVILRead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES: (1) CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ATTORNEY AT LAWS PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE, AND AIDING AND ABETTING THEREOF,; ETCRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by True Harmony (Plaintiff); Ray Haiem (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC546574 Hearing Date: September 21, 2020 Dept: 31
On May 22, 2014, Plaintiffs True Harmony, Inc. and Ray Haiem filed the instant action against Defendants Rosario Perry, Hope Park Lofts 2001-02910056, LLC; Norman Solomon, and Does 1 to 10. On January 19, 2017, Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) adding Defendant Law Offices of Rosario Perry; 1130 South Hope Street Investment Associates LLC; BIMHF, LLC; and Shawn Manshoory. The SAC asserts causes of action for:
Independent Equitable Action to Set Aside Void Orders and Judgment(s) of this Court;
Equitable Relief to Enforce the Quiet Title Statute;
Cancellation of Instruments;
Equitable Relief and Damages for Violations of Charitable Trust and Corporation Laws;
Restitution and Injunction against Unfair, Fraudulent and Unlawful Practices;
Equitable Relief and Money Damages for Transaction Voidable under Civil Code § 3439.01 et seq.;
Damages for Retaliation against the Termination of a Charitable Fund-raising Contract in Violation of Public Policy; and
Money Damages for Conversion of Personal Property.
On April 7, 2017, the Court sustained Defendants 1130 Hope Street Investment Associates, LLC; Hope Park Lofts 2001-02910056, LLC; Solomon; Perry; Rosario Perry, A Professional Law Corporation (erroneously sued as Law Offices of Rosario Perry); and BIMHF, LLC’s demurrers to the entirety of the SAC without leave to amend and entered judgment in favor of Defendants.
On March 4, 2020, Defendant Solomon (hereinafter “Defendant”) filed a Motion for Sanctions seeking sanctions against Jeffrey G. Thomas Esq. On July 6, 2020, after taking the matter under submission, the Court denied Defendant’s motion (the “underlying motion”) as moot.
On June 11, 2020, Plaintiff True Harmony, Inc. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) filed the instant motion for sanctions, seeking $15,000.00 in sanctions against Defendant and Hugh John Gibson, Esq. (herein collectively referred to as “Solomon”) for the filing the underlying motion.
CCP section 128.7 states that a court may impose sanctions on a party or attorney that presents a pleading, petition, motion, or other similar papers in the following circumstances:
1) the document is presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are not warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.
3) the allegations and other factual contentions have no evidentiary support;
4) the denials of factual contentions are not warranted on the evidence.
CCP section 128.7 permits the Court to impose monetary sanctions on an attorney or an unrepresented party that violates any one of these requirements. (Eichenbaum v. Alon (2003) 106 Cal App 4th 967, 976.) In addition, section 128.7 does not require a finding of subjective bad faith; instead it requires only that the Court find that the conduct be objectively unreasonable. (In re Marriage of Reese & Guy (1999) 73 Cal. App. 4th 1214, 1221.)
Request for Judicial Notice
The Court may take judicial notice of “official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States,” “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States,” and “[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code § 452, subds. (c), (d), and (h).)
Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the “attached partial docket of the court in this action.”
Solomon objects to the request arguing that Plaintiff provides no foundation for the claim that the document in question is a “partial docket of the court in this action” and the document is not, in fact, a “partial docket of the court in this action.”
Plaintiff’s request is DENIED. Plaintiff has failed to furnish the Court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. (Evid. Code § 453(b).)
Plaintiff seeks $15,000.00 in sanctions for Solomon’s filing of the underlying motion in this case arguing that Solomon’s motion was frivolous.
21 Day Safe Harbor Provision
CCP section 128.7(c)(1) requires that a motion for sanctions under CCP section 128.7 be made separately from other motions and that notice of the motion must be served, but not filed with the Court, unless, within 21 days after service of the motion, the challenged paper is not withdrawn. This 21-day time period is known as a “safe harbor” period and its purpose is to permit an offending party to avoid sanctions by withdrawing the improper pleading during the safe harbor period. (Li v. Majestic Industry Hills LLC (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 585, 591.) This permits a party to withdraw a questionable pleading without penalty, thus saving the court and the parties time and money litigating the pleading as well as the sanctions request. (Ibid.)
Solomon opposes the instant motion arguing, inter alia, that Plaintiff failed to comply with the 21-day safe harbor provision as required by Section 128.7.
Plaintiff’s moving papers make no effort to demonstrate its compliance with the 21-day safe harbor provision aside from a declaration made by its counsel that he sent a “letter dated May 8, 2020 [was sent to Solomon,] which requested [Solomon] withdraw their Notice of Motion and Motion for Sanctions[.]” (Thomas Decl. ¶ 13, Exh. D.) Such evidence is insufficient to establish that the motion and notice of the motion were served on Solomon at least 21 days before the motion was filed on June 11, 2020. Absent evidence that Plaintiff complied with the 21-day safe harbor provision, Plaintiff has failed to show entitlement to the relief sought.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED.
Moving party to give notice.
The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings virtually or by audio. Effective July 20, 2020, all matters will be scheduled virtually and/or with audio through the Court’s LACourtConnect technology. The parties are strongly encouraged to use LACourtConnect for all their matters. All social distancing protocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in the courtrooms.
Case Number: BC546574 Hearing Date: July 02, 2020 Dept: 31
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (CCP § 128.7) IS DENIED
Defendant Norman Soloman’s Motion for Sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 is DENIED as moot. The pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar paper that is the subject of Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Costs, was withdrawn on February 7, 2020. Pursuant to Section 128.7(c)(1), the motion was filed but not served on January 24, 2020, allowing Plaintiff until February 14, 2020 to withdraw the contested Motion to Tax Costs. Having withdrawn the Motion to Tax Costs, pursuant to Section 128.7(c)(1), the instant motion should have never been filed.
The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings by telephone or CourtCall. All social distancing protocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in the courtrooms.
Moving party shall give notice.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases