This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/13/2020 at 02:50:20 (UTC).

AARON KWESKIN, AN INDIVIDUAL VS. RONNIE CHARLES KING

Case Summary

On 06/22/2017 AARON KWESKIN, AN INDIVIDUAL filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against RONNIE CHARLES KING. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. MATZ, OTHER DISTRICT JUDGE and CURTIS A. KIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6951

  • Filing Date:

    06/22/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LAURA A. MATZ

OTHER DISTRICT JUDGE

CURTIS A. KIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Cross Defendants and Not Classified By Court

KWESKIN AARON AN INDIVIDUAL

KWESKIN AARON

KING ALEC JACOB

KING PAIGE

KING MATTHEW RYAN

KING RONNIE CHARLES

KING REBECCA PAIGE

KING PAMELA HALPERN

KING AN INDIVIDUAL PAMELA HALPERN

KING A MINOR INDIVIDUAL BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM PAMELA HALPERN KING DAVID ZANE

KING AN INDIVIDUAL MATTHEW RYAN

KING AN INDIVIDUAL REBECCA PAIGE

SUSAN KWESKIN

KWESKIN SUSAN

KING RONNIE CHARLES AN INDIVIDUAL

KING PAMELA

KING RONNIE

Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs and Not Classified By Court

KING RONNIE CHARLES AN INDIVIDUAL

KING PAMELA

KWESKIN SUSAN

KING RONNIE

KWESKIN AARON

KING RONNIE DEFENDANT - CROSS DEFENDANT

KING PAMELA DEFENDANT - CROSS DEFENDANT

KWESKIN AN INDIVIDUAL AARON

4 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff, Cross Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

FRISH LAW GROUP

FRISH VADIM FELIX

RICHARD P. TOWNE ESQ.

PARISH LARRY E. ESQ.

TOWNE RICHARD PAUL ESQ.

WILSON JASON S.

TOWNE RICHARD PAUL

VENSKUS SABRINA D

LEES JAMES B. JR.

VENSKUS SABRINA

Plaintiff, Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

RICHARD P. TOWNE ESQ.

TOWNE RICHARD PAUL ESQ.

WILLIAMS WARREN MCKAY

EARLY MASLACH & HARTSUYKER

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

FRISH VADIM FELIX

WILSON JASON S.

HARTSUYKER STRATMAN & WILLIAMS-ABREGO

Plaintiff, Defendant and Not Classified By Court Attorney

TOWNE RICHARD PAUL ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

8/6/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITH MOTION TO STRIKE (CCP 430.10))

12/6/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITH MOTION TO STRIKE (CCP 430.10))

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF SABRINA VENSKUS

11/21/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF SABRINA VENSKUS

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

11/15/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Application to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice

8/13/2019: Application to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Substitution of Attorney

8/8/2019: Substitution of Attorney

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Cross-Compl fld- No Summons Issued

8/21/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Cross-Compl fld- No Summons Issued

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Proof-Service/Summons

8/28/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Proof-Service/Summons

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Stipulation

9/5/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Stipulation

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Demurrer

9/25/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Demurrer

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Motion to Quash

10/16/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Motion to Quash

Case Management Statement

11/3/2017: Case Management Statement

Answer

12/12/2017: Answer

Application

2/2/2018: Application

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-04-10 00:00:00

4/10/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-04-10 00:00:00

Stipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order Re Consolidation for All Purposes

1/28/2019: Stipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order Re Consolidation for All Purposes

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Court Order) of 01/28/2019

1/28/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Court Order) of 01/28/2019

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

2/1/2019: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

120 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/14/2020
  • Hearing12/14/2020 at 09:00 AM in Department E at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2020
  • Hearing12/03/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department E at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/19/2020
  • DocketNotice of Change of Firm Name; Filed by AARON, KWESKIN (Plaintiff); SUSAN KWESKIN (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/06/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Jury Trial ((Estimate 2 weeks)) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2020
  • DocketStipulation and Order (: Stipulation to ContinueTtrial); Filed by AARON, KWESKIN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
207 More Docket Entries
  • 08/11/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/11/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by RONNIE KING, an individual, Defendant - Cross Defendant (Defendant); PAMELA HALPERN KING, an individual, Defendant - Cross Defendant (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2017
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2017
  • DocketNotice (of Order to Show Cause Re Failure to Comply With Trial Court Delay Reduction Act)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2017
  • DocketSummons Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC066951    Hearing Date: February 14, 2020    Dept: E

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

(CCP § 2031.310)

Date: 2/14/20

Case: Aaron Kweskin, et al. v. Ronnie Charles King, et al. (EC 066951)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Aaron Kweskin’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, Nos. 1 through 6 is GRANTED.

Kweskin has good cause to request the recording between defendant Ronnie Charles King and plumber Carlos, as it may contain evidence of a purported attempt by Kweskin to shift blame for mold on the premises to the Kings by claiming that the Kings hit the water heater with a car. Indeed, none of the parties dispute the relevance of the recording or its contents.

Defendant’s objection to producing the recording due to its potential illegality is not well taken. Penal Code § 631 does not appear to apply to the circumstances, as the recording did not involve any wiretap (or similar activity) of the conversation with Carlos. Penal Code § 632 may very well apply if King recorded his conversation with Carlos without consent. But even if King violated Penal Code § 632, thereby potentially rendering the recording inadmissible under subsection 632(d), the recording is still discoverable, as it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (See CCP § 2017.010.) Certainly, the conversation that was subject to recording, including testimony about it and evidence related thereto, may be admissible at trial, even if the recording itself is not. (See Frio v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1480, 1493.) Indeed, under certain circumstances, the recording might also potentially be used at trial, including for impeachment. (See id. at 1497.) Further, the Court does not find that counsel for defendant would be liable for complying with discovery obligations in this case, as there is no allegation or suggestion counsel is responsible for having engaged in potentially unlawful activity concerning the recorded conversation of Carlos without consent.

Accordingly, defendant/cross-complainant Ronnie Charles King is ordered to produce further verified code-compliant responses to Request for Production, Set Two, Nos. 1 through 6 within 10 days hereof. Defendant King is further ordered to affirm whether privileged documents were withheld and, if so, provide a privilege log. (CCP § 2031.240(c)(1); Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 129-30.)

Kweskin’s request for sanctions is DENIED. Given the valid concern regarding the illegality of the recording at issue, the Court finds King and his counsel opposed discovery with substantial justification.

Case Number: EC066951    Hearing Date: December 11, 2019    Dept: E

TENTATIVE RULING

DEMURRER & MOTION TO STRIKE

[CCP §430.10 et. seq.]

Date: 12/11/19

Case:    Aaron Kweskin, et al. v. Ronnie Charles King, et al. (EC 066951)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Aaron Kweskin’s and Susan Kweskin’s Demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) is OVERRULED.

The Court previously overruled demurrers on several of the same grounds and to the same causes of action in connection with the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). There is no indication in the moving papers how the situation has changed such that the Court should now reconsider those rulings. As to the third cause of action for breach of warranty of habitability, however, it does not appear that defendants previously challenged the cause of action for breach of warranty of habitability, which was the ninth cause of action in the FAC. Nonetheless, CCP § 430.41(b) prevents consideration of the defendants’ demurrer to that previously unchallenged cause of action, as it provides:

A party demurring to a pleading that has been amended after a demurrer to an earlier version of the pleading was sustained shall not demur to any portion of the amended complaint, cross-complaint, or answer on grounds that could have been raised by demurrer to the earlier version of the complaint, cross-complaint, or answer.

In any case, even if the Court were to consider the demurrer to the breach of the warranty of habitability claim, the Court finds that the TAC sufficiently alleges such a claim on the part of all plaintiffs, who are alleged to have occupied the subject premises and been tenants of defendants. (See TAC ¶¶ 10, 13.)

Defendants’ Motion to Strike Third Amended Complaint is DENIED. As with the overruling of the demurrer on grounds previously raised, the Court also denied defendants’ motion to strike punitive damages in connection with the FAC. As before, the facts supporting a prayer for punitive damages are again sufficiently alleged in the TAC. The Court finds that valid fraud claims are stated in the fifth cause of action, which alone is sufficient. The facts alleged support a finding of conduct constituting malice, namely, the defendant landlords’ failing to remediate or warn of conditions of which they had actual knowledge, and which posed a significant health and safety risk to the occupants of the premises. [See TAC ¶¶ 14-16, 23-33, 36-39]. That is sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages. (See Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1068 [landlord’s failure to remediate problems caused by excessive moisture and mold infestation may support a claim for punitive damages].)

Ten days to answer.