Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/13/2020 at 04:14:51 (UTC).

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIF., VS. DOES 1 THROUGH 100

Case Summary

On 06/08/1999 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIF filed an Other lawsuit against DOES 1 THROUGH 100. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MADELEINE I. FLIER, CHARLES W. MCCOY, MORIO L. FUKUTO, MALCOLM MACKEY, ERNEST GEORGE WILLIAMS, VICTOR H. PERSON, JAMES BASCUE, CAROL BOAS GOODSON, REGINALD A. DUNN, CAROLYN B. KUHL, VICTORIA CHANEY, EDWARD B. MORETON, JR., EDWARD B. MORETON and STEPHEN M. MOLONEY. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1613

  • Filing Date:

    06/08/1999

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MADELEINE I. FLIER

CHARLES W. MCCOY

MORIO L. FUKUTO

MALCOLM MACKEY

ERNEST GEORGE WILLIAMS

VICTOR H. PERSON

JAMES BASCUE

CAROL BOAS GOODSON

REGINALD A. DUNN

CAROLYN B. KUHL

VICTORIA CHANEY

EDWARD B. MORETON, JR.

EDWARD B. MORETON

STEPHEN M. MOLONEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Respondent

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Defendants, Respondents and Appellants

MIRSKY ALEX SEMYON

MEYLIKER NINA

FAZELI FARZIN

GUDIS ALEXANDER

SULLIVAN HAROLD V. II LAW OFFICES OF

SHPOLYANSKY YAKOV

SHAMISOV ISABELLA

RASKIN ROMAN

BASH FAINA

FRID EDWARD

RASKIN NATALIA

RAPPOPORT MICHAEL

SHAMISOV ARKADY

KHIRICH LEON

KHASIN MARIA M.D.

GILER MICHAEL

NAGELBERG LARRY

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Cross Defendant

KEN'S DRIVE-IN LIQUOR

Other

PERL PETER

21 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

BILL LOCKYER

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

LODER LORRAINE L. LAW OFFICES OF

ORNELAZ ERNEST S. LAW OFFICES OF

GUINER STEPHEN F.

GERSHFELD ALANA

MITTELMANN EGON

LAW OFFICES OF EMILIKE KALU

WEISS LAW CORP

NEUVILLE & GERSHFELD LAW OFFICES OF

ZELIG STEVEN L. & ASSOCIATES LAW O/O

GREENHALGH BARRY L.

DONAHOE TIMOTHY C. LAW OFFICES OF

EDELBERG & ESPINA LAW OFFICES OF

GOLDFARB STUART LAW O/O

DICKRELL ROBERT A. LAW OFFICES OF

GUINER STEPHEN F. ESQ.

MOSS RICHARD A. LAW OFFICES

BERNSLEY SIEVERT YOUNG & DONAHOE LLP

Other Attorneys

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF THE ST. OF CA

EVANNS JOSEPH R. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER OF DEPARTMENT 44)

6/11/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER OF DEPARTMENT 44)

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF EXAMINATION OF RAYA SPEKTOR

10/11/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF EXAMINATION OF RAYA SPEKTOR

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

11/15/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAMINATI...)

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF EXAMINATION OF EDGAR ZALYAN

12/6/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF EXAMINATION OF EDGAR ZALYAN

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF EXAMINATION OF ERINA GILERMAN

12/6/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF EXAMINATION OF ERINA GILERMAN

Application and Order for Appearance and Examination

2/5/2020: Application and Order for Appearance and Examination

Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal - APPEAL - NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR NOTICE OF APPEAL, FILED 4/17/19

4/19/2019: Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal - APPEAL - NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR NOTICE OF APPEAL, FILED 4/17/19

Application and Order for Appearance and Examination

4/25/2019: Application and Order for Appearance and Examination

Notice - NOTICE TO REPORTER RE OMISSION OF DESIGNATED PORTION OF RECORD

8/16/2019: Notice - NOTICE TO REPORTER RE OMISSION OF DESIGNATED PORTION OF RECORD

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE

8/22/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE

Stipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order TO CONTINUE EXAMINATION OF ALEX SEYMON MIRSKY

2/5/2019: Stipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order TO CONTINUE EXAMINATION OF ALEX SEYMON MIRSKY

Order - Order Re Ex Parte Application for an Order Continuing Hearing on Alex Semyon Mirsky's Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment, or Alternatively, the Default Judgment

2/21/2019: Order - Order Re Ex Parte Application for an Order Continuing Hearing on Alex Semyon Mirsky's Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment, or Alternatively, the Default Judgment

Opposition - Opposition TO MOTION TO VACATE RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT; DECLARATIONS OF MICHAEL WALLIN AND JAMES PERKINS

3/6/2019: Opposition - Opposition TO MOTION TO VACATE RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT; DECLARATIONS OF MICHAEL WALLIN AND JAMES PERKINS

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF DENNIS KASS IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT CREDITORS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO VACATE RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

3/11/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF DENNIS KASS IN SUPPORT OF JUDGMENT CREDITORS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO VACATE RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT

APPL. & ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAM. (ATT.-ENF OF JUDGEMENT) -

7/25/2018: APPL. & ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAM. (ATT.-ENF OF JUDGEMENT) -

APPL. & ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAM. (ATT.-ENF OF JUDGEMENT) -

7/25/2018: APPL. & ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAM. (ATT.-ENF OF JUDGEMENT) -

APPL. & ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAM. (ATT.-ENF OF JUDGEMENT) -

7/25/2018: APPL. & ORDER FOR APPEARANCE AND EXAM. (ATT.-ENF OF JUDGEMENT) -

87 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/03/2020
  • Hearing09/03/2020 at 13:45 PM in Department 12 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing - Other Joinder of Alexander Gudis in the Motion of Alexander Mirsky Re: Expunging the Abstracts of Judgments

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2020
  • Hearing09/03/2020 at 13:45 PM in Department 12 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion - Other Expunging the Abstracts of Judgments

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/03/2020
  • Hearing09/03/2020 at 13:45 PM in Department 12 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Quash All Outstanding Third-Party Order for Appearance and Examination

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2020
  • Hearing07/13/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 12 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2020
  • Hearing07/13/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 12 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2020
  • Hearing07/13/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 12 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2020
  • Hearing07/13/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 12 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2020
  • Hearing07/13/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 12 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2020
  • Hearing07/13/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 12 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Application for Order for Appearance and Examination

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2020
  • Docketat 10:21 AM in Department 44, Edward B. Moreton, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
1,809 More Docket Entries
  • 08/13/1999
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/13/1999
  • DocketEX PARTE APPLICATION TO VACATE THE COURT'S AUGUST 12, 1999 ORDER; ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/12/1999
  • DocketCERTIFICATE OF CLERK AND ORDER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/1999
  • DocketORDER EXTENDING TIME PURSUANT TO I.C. 1981.7(3)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/1999
  • DocketEX PARTE APPLICATION ORDER FOR EXTESION OF TIME PURSUANT TO I.C. 1871.7 (3)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/1999
  • DocketEX PARTE APPLICATION ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME PURSUANT TO I.C. 1871.7(3)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/1999
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/1999
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF STATE INSURANCE FRAUDS PREVENTION ACT, ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/1999
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile (Plaintiff); PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/1999
  • DocketQUITAM PLAINTIFF'S STATEMETN OFDAMAGES

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC211613    Hearing Date: January 14, 2021    Dept: 12

Motion of Judgment Creditor for Reconsideration of Order Staying Judgment Enforcement Proceedings as to Judgement Debtor Alex Mirsky

Tentative Ruling: The Motion is denied.

On October 30, 2020, this court denied Mirsky’s “Motion Expunging the Abstracts of Judgments Obtained from the Clerk Based on Void Judgment of Judge Kuhl Entered February 23, 2003 and Recorded by Plaintiff on April 30, 2003 with the Riverside and Los Angeles County Records.” (Minute Order, Oct. 30, 2020, (the Order).) In the Order, the court also granted the “Motion to Quash All Outstanding Third-Party Order for Appearance and Examination in this Case as to Anyone and Everyone and Order of Extinguishment of All Liens Thereby Created; Order Barring Enforcement of Any Judgment that Remains in this Case that is Not the Result of a Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 Enforcement” with respect to Ms. Mirsky.

The court granted Ms. Mirsky’s motion after determining that it could not rule on whether Mirsky was properly served with the Second Amended Complaint. This ruling was based on the fact that the Honorable Edward B. Moreton had already heard and rejected Mirsky’s arguments with respect to that issue in 2019. (See Minute Order, Mar. 20, 2019.) At the time the court issued the Order, Judge Moreton’s ruling was under appeal in the Second District Court of Appeal. (See the Order, at p. 3.) The court thus ruled as follows:

The pendency of the appeal of Judge Moreton’s order also requires this court to stay enforcement proceedings with respect to the judgment against Mirsky. Department 44 no longer handles postjudgment proceedings. Plaintiffs filed the Application and Order for Appearance and Examination with respect to Florence Mirsky in Department 12 of the Spring Street Courthouse because the original judgment against Mirsky was entered by this court. However, under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 916(a) this court is precluded from conducting proceedings to enforce the judgment against Mirsky because the validity of that judgment is currently being challenged on appeal. Therefore, the court grants the Motion to Quash as to all post-judgment proceedings to enforce the judgment against Mirsky.

(Id. at p. 4.)

Plaintiff moves the court to reconsider the following portion of the Order: “Therefore, the court grants the Motion to Quash as to all post-judgment proceedings to enforce the judgment against Mirsky.” (Order, at p. 4.) Plaintiff argues that the Order is inappropriate for two reasons: (1) it is incorrect as a matter of law; and (2) none of the moving parties sought to stay enforcement of the judgment and, as a result, Plaintiff was deprived of the opportunity to brief the issue before the court’s issuance of the Order.

Plaintiff states as follows in its Notice of Motion: “Pursuant to CCP § 1008, [Plaintiff] respectfully requests that the Court modify the Order by removing the language which stays enforcement of the judgment against Mirsky or, in the alternative, to require that Mirsky provide an undertaking in accordance with CCP § 917.1.” (Notice of Mot., at p. 1 (emphasis in original).) Plaintiff does not suggest that the court reconsider the Order sua sponte.

The Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Grant the Motion

“When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a) (emphasis added).)

Section 1008 “specifies the court’s jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions, and applies to all applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous motion, whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or final. No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (e) (emphasis added).)

“[A] party may not file a written motion to reconsider that has procedural significance if it does not satisfy the requirements of section … 1008. The court need not rule on any suggestion that it should reconsider a previous ruling and, without more, another party would not be expected to respond to such a suggestion.” (Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1108 (Le Francois) (emphasis in original).) “To be fair to the parties, if the court is seriously concerned that one of its prior interim rulings might have been erroneous, and thus that it might want to reconsider that ruling on its own motion—something we think will happen rather rarely—it should inform the parties of this concern, solicit briefing, and hold a hearing.” (Id.)

Plaintiff has not complied with the requirements of section 1008. Plaintiff’s argument presented in the Motion is that the court misinterpreted Code of Civil Procedure section 916, subdivision (a) in the Order. Plaintiff does not point to any new or different facts, circumstances, or law that would justify a modification of the Order. The relief sought in the Motion to Quash put Plaintiff on notice that the arguments offered in this Motion were relevant to the prior Motion. This Motion is not based on intervening legal precedent. Subdivision (c) of section 1008 (which is not cited by Plaintiff) states: “If a court at any time determines that there has been a change of law that warrants it to reconsider a prior order it entered, it may do so on its own motion and enter a different order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (c).) There has not been “a change of law that warrants reconsideration,” and the court therefore may not modify the Order pursuant to subdivision (c).