Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/09/2019 at 21:43:48 (UTC).

YAJAC AGRICULTURE LLC VS MARK EPSTEIN ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/22/2015 YAJAC AGRICULTURE LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MARK EPSTEIN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB and RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2745

  • Filing Date:

    05/22/2015

  • 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

DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB

RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

YAJAC AGRICULTURE LLC

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-20

EPSTEIN MARK

HOLLYWOOD HOLISTIC

PACIFIC COAST SUSTAINABLE ASSETS LLC

Cross Defendants

REISS YAEL

REISS JACOB

REISS UZZI

GOLIGHLY ROBERT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

AFIFI LAW GROUP

AFIFI FARYAN ANDREW ESQ.

AFIFI FARYAN ANDREW

Defendant Attorney

CARLSEN MILES A R

Cross Defendant Attorney

HODGE ARTHUR DONALDSON

 

Court Documents

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER AND FOR ORDER REQUIRING THE SERVICE OF DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY "HOLLYWOOD HOLISTIC"; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1/18/2018: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER AND FOR ORDER REQUIRING THE SERVICE OF DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY "HOLLYWOOD HOLISTIC"; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

EX PARTE APPLICATION RE DISPOSITION OF EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL REGARDING YAJAC'S RESPONSES TO EPSTEIN'S FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1(B) AND (D) - GENERAL (SET NO. 1); ETC

8/7/2018: EX PARTE APPLICATION RE DISPOSITION OF EPSTEIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL REGARDING YAJAC'S RESPONSES TO EPSTEIN'S FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1(B) AND (D) - GENERAL (SET NO. 1); ETC

Opposition

5/30/2019: Opposition

Minute Order

5/30/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

8/14/2015: Minute Order

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

3/10/2016: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT, HOLLYWOOD HOLISTIC, TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NO. ONE, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,391

6/16/2016: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT, HOLLYWOOD HOLISTIC, TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET NO. ONE, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,391

PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. ONE PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANT, MARC EPSTEIN

6/16/2016: PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NO. ONE PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANT, MARC EPSTEIN

NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF MOSES. S. BARDAVID

12/15/2016: NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF MOSES. S. BARDAVID

PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF FSC CHANGE

3/3/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF FSC CHANGE

ANSWER TO THIRD ANENDED COMPLAINT

3/8/2017: ANSWER TO THIRD ANENDED COMPLAINT

CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

3/8/2017: CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET NO. ONE PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANT, MARC EPSTEIN

8/31/2017: PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES. SET NO. ONE PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANT, MARC EPSTEIN

ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

10/5/2017: ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

PROOF OF SERVICE?CIVIL

10/6/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE?CIVIL

Minute Order

10/23/2017: Minute Order

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; ETC.

12/4/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; ETC.

PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

12/13/2017: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

159 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/03/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Informal Discovery Conference (IDC); Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Notice (STIPULATIONS AND RULINGS THEREON RE INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE ISSUES); Filed by Mark Epstein (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Notice ( OF TRIAL DATE); Filed by Mark Epstein (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Informal Discovery Conference; Filed by Mark Epstein (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (FOR AN ORDER SETTING DEPOSITION SCHEDULE) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • Opposition (to Ex Parte Application to Set Deposition Scheduling); Filed by Yajac Agriculture, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Attorney for Defendant/Cross-Complainant Marc Epstein's Ex Pa...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
389 More Docket Entries
  • 08/14/2015
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2015
  • CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2015
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by Yajac Agriculture, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2015
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Yajac Agriculture, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2015
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2015
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2015
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2015
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC582745    Hearing Date: April 27, 2021    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE: April 27, 2021 TRIAL DATE:  June 28, 2021
CASE:  Yajac Agriculture, LLC v. Mark Epstein, et al.
CASE NO.:  BC582745
 
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL CROSS-COMPLAINT
 
MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Mark Epstein
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Cross-Defendants Yajac Agriculture, LLC, Uzzi Reiss, Jacob Reiss, and Yael Reiss
CASE HISTORY:
05/22/15: Complaint filed.
11/13/15: First Amended Complaint filed.
03/29/16: Second Amended Complaint filed.
10/11/16: Third Amended Complaint filed.
03/08/17: Cross-Complaint filed (without leave of court).
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
This is a dispute regarding Defendants’ obligation pertaining to the operation of a limited liability company established to cultivate marijuana.
Defendant Marc Epstein filed a Cross-Complaint alleging that Cross-Defendants acted to exclude Cross-Complainant from the LLC owned by Cross-Complainant and Cross-Defendants to farm medical marijuana and took money and product that belonged to the LLC. Cross-Complainant seeks to enforce his 25% member’s share of the LLC’s net profits.
Defendant/Cross-Complainant Marc Epstein moves for leave to file a first amended/supplemental cross-complaint.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant/Cross-Complainant Marc Epstein’s motion for leave to file first amended/supplemental cross-complaint is DENIED without prejudice.
DISCUSSION:
Motion for Leave to File First Amended/Supplemental Cross-Complaint
Cross-Complainant Marc Epstein seeks leave (1) to amend his cross-complaint, and (2) to supplement his cross-complaint.
Leave to File Amended Cross-Complaint
Cross-Complainant seeks leave to amend the cross-complaint to delete certain causes of action, add certain causes of action, and “consolidate[] and amend[] the actionable facts . . . in a unified predicate fact section.” (Motion at unnumbered  p. 3.)
The Court may, “at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, . . . allow the amendment of any pleading.” (CCP § 576.) A motion to amend a pleading before trial must meet the following requirements:
(a) Contents of motion
A motion to amend a pleading before trial must:
(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;
(2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and
(3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.
(b) Supporting declaration
A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify:
(1) The effect of the amendment;
(2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper;
(3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and
(4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.
(CRC 3.1324.)
Contents of Motion
Cross-Complainant has included a copy of the proposed first amended/ supplemental cross-complaint with this motion, as required by CRC 3.124(a)(1). 
Cross-Complainant has not, however, stated which allegations he proposes to delete or add and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, as required by CRC 3.124(a)(2)-(3). A vague statement that the proposed pleading “consolidates and amends the actionable facts from the original cross-complaint” (¶¶ 10-25) in a “unified predicate fact section” (¶¶ 13-100) is insufficient. (Motion, at unnumbered p. 2.) Thus, the contents of the motion do not comply with CRC 3.124(a).
Supporting Declaration
The Declaration of Attorney Miles Carlsen accompanying the motion does not explain when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered and why the request for amendment was not made earlier, as required by CRC 3.124(b)(3) and (4). The declarant asserts that his “assessment is that the operative facts remain the same,” but he also refers to “additional facts that provide context for the facts alleged in the original cross-complaint.” (Carlsen Decl. ¶ 3.) As to these facts, the declarant explains only that “[d]iscovery and investigation over the past four years” uncovered them. (Ibid.) There is no explanation of why the request for amendment based on these additional facts was not made earlier nor any attempt to identify which new facts were discovered when.
Nor does the declaration explain why the amendment is necessary and proper, as required by CRC 3.124(b)(2). The declaration indicates only that reframing the original seventeen causes of action as eight causes of action is “in the interest of efficiency and conservation of resources.” (Carlsen Decl. ¶ 3.) This does not explain why new and different causes of action are necessary and proper, and the proposed amended cross-complaint does not merely eliminate nine causes of action; it eliminates eleven causes of action and adds others in place of some of the eliminated causes of action, and the latter is not explained in the declaration. Nor does the declaration state the effect of the amendments in full, as required by CRC 3.124(b)(1). Thus, the Court finds that the supporting declaration does not satisfy the requirements of the rule.
In his reply, Cross-Complainant states that Cross-Defendant’s reference to CRC 3.124 ignores that “it was their misconduct in this case that gave rise to a proposed pleading in the first place.” (Reply, at p. 4.) Another party’s alleged misconduct does not justify the moving party’s failure to comply with the rule applicable to amended pleadings.
Accordingly, the motion for leave to file an amended cross-complaint is DENIED, without prejudice to filing a motion to complies with CRC 3.124. 
Leave to Supplement Cross-Complaint
Cross-Complainant also seeks to supplement the cross-complaint to allege “actionable facts that have occurred since July 2020.” (Motion, at unnumbered p. 8.)
On motion, a party may “make a supplemental complaint . . . alleging facts material to the case occurring after the former complaint.” (CCP § 464(a).)
[T]echnically an amended complaint will supersede the original complaint unless there is something in the former showing that it is to be considered merely an amendment to the complaint and a “supplementary” complaint is supposed to deal only with facts arising subsequently to the filing of the original complaint and has nothing to do with amendment to conform to the proofs.
(Nels E. Nelson, Inc. v. Tarman (1958) 163 Cal.App.2d 714, 720, bold emphasis added.)
As with a motion to amend a pleading, a motion to supplement a pleading must comply with CRC 3.1324(b). (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2021) § 6:812, p. 6-E. Here, as noted above, Cross-Complainant has included a copy of the proposed first amended/supplemental cross-complaint with this motion, as required by CRC 3.124(a)(1). Cross-Complainant also appears to propose to add Paragraphs 85 to 99 and not to delete any paragraphs in connection with the supplemental pleading, thus complying with CRC 3.124(a)(2)-(3). 
The Declaration of Attorney Miles Carlsen accompanying the motion appears to state that the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered “in the latter part of 2020” (Carlen Decl. ¶ 5), as required by CRC 3.1324(b)(3), but does not explain why the request for amendment was not made earlier, as required by CRC 3.124(b)(4). Nor does the declaration explain why the amendment is necessary and proper, as required by CRC 3.124(b)(2). Nor does the declaration state the effect of the amendments in full, as required by CRC 3.124(b)(1). Thus, the Court finds that the supporting declaration does not satisfy the requirements of the rule.
Also, as with amended pleadings, a motion to file supplemental pleadings is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. (Louie Queriolo Trucking, Inc. v. Superior Court (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 194, 197.) A supplemental pleading cannot, however, allege “new” causes of action or defenses. The purpose of supplementing a complaint is not to seek a new cause of action, but to address later instances of the same conduct. (Jaffa v. Guttman (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 790, 798.)
It is the general policy that courts should exercise liberality in permitting the filing of supplemental pleadings when the alleged “occurring-after” facts are pertinent to the case. (Code Civ. Proc., § 464; People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. Douglas, 15 Cal.App.3d 814 [93 Cal.Rptr. 644]; Louie Queriolo Trucking, Inc. v. Superior Court, 252 Cal.App.2d 194, 197-198 [60 Cal.Rptr. 389].) Nonetheless, the motion to file a supplemental pleading is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the court, and its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a showing of a manifest abuse of that discretion. (Wood v. Brown, 39 Cal.App.3d 232, 239-240 [114 Cal.Rptr. 63]; Louie Queriolo Trucking, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra; Erickson v. Boothe, 127 Cal.App.2d 644 [274 P.2d 460].) There is no such showing in the instant case. 
(Flood v. Simpson (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 644, 647, bold emphasis added.)
Here, the original cross-complaint was filed on March 8, 2017. Cross-Complainant proposes to add Paragraphs 85 to 99 to the cross-complaint, most of which allege events occurring in 2019 and later. However, given that these factual allegations are divorced from any particular cause of action, the Court cannot determine whether these allegations relate to one of the unidentified new causes of action in the proposed pleading or an existing cause of action. A supplemental pleading is only proper if the new allegations supplement an existing cause of action. (Flood, supra, 45 Cal.App.3d at 647.) Cross-Complainant’s decision to “consolidate” the facts has also made it impossible for the Court to determine whether he seeks to add new causes of action (as part of this motion to supplement) or merely supplement existing causes of action with new facts.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED, without prejudice to filing a motion that complies with CRC 3.124 and that makes clear which cause(s) of action is/are being supplemented by the new facts.
Moving party to give notice, unless waived.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:   April 27, 2021 ___________________________________
Theresa M. Traber
Judge of the Superior Court
Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing.  All interested parties must be copied on the email.  It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer ARTHUR D. HODGE ATTORNEY AT LAW