This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/28/2019 at 01:40:18 (UTC).

AFFELD GRIVAKES LLP VS DAVID SEYDE ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/06/2018 a Contract - Other Contract case was filed by AFFELD GRIVAKES LLP against DAVID SEYDE in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1231

  • Filing Date:

    04/06/2018

  • 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

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

AFFELD GRIVAKES LLP

Respondents and Defendants

EDGE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING LLC

KENNEDY BRIAN

ZOOMKUBE LLC

SEYDE DAVID

KENNEDY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING LLC

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' DEMURRERS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DEMURRERS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF CHAD R. FITZGERALD

6/11/2018: NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' DEMURRERS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DEMURRERS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF CHAD R. FITZGERALD

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HEARING DATE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE TO THE SAME DATE AS THE HEARING OF DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

7/17/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HEARING DATE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE TO THE SAME DATE AS THE HEARING OF DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

CIVIL DEPOSIT

8/1/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

RULING RE: DEFENDANTS DAVID SEYDE, BRIAN KENNEDY, EDGE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, LLC, EDGE OUTDOOR MEDIA, LLC, ZOOMKUBE, LLC, AND KENNEDY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, LLC'S DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT

8/3/2018: RULING RE: DEFENDANTS DAVID SEYDE, BRIAN KENNEDY, EDGE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, LLC, EDGE OUTDOOR MEDIA, LLC, ZOOMKUBE, LLC, AND KENNEDY OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, LLC'S DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

8/3/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

Minute Order

8/3/2018: Minute Order

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

8/22/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC SERVICE AND NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE ADDRESS

9/12/2018: CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC SERVICE AND NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE ADDRESS

Request for Judicial Notice

1/25/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

1/25/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Declaration

1/25/2019: Declaration

Proof of Personal Service

1/29/2019: Proof of Personal Service

Declaration

2/21/2019: Declaration

Notice of Ruling

3/1/2019: Notice of Ruling

Notice

3/19/2019: Notice

Minute Order

4/29/2019: Minute Order

Motion to Compel

5/21/2019: Motion to Compel

Notice of Ruling

5/22/2019: Notice of Ruling

35 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/13/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 78; Hearing on Motion to Quash (Subpoenas and for Protection from Subpoenas Seeking Third-Party Discovery) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 78; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 78; Hearing on Ex Parte Application ( to Deny or Continue Motion for Summary Judgment) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Affeld Grivakes LLP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (Ex Parte Application to Deny or Continue Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Affeld Grivakes LLP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Deny or Continue Motion f...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • Motion to Compel (Defendant Brian Kennedy to Appear for Deposition); Filed by Affeld Grivakes LLP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 78; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 78; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order) of 04/29/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
65 More Docket Entries
  • 06/11/2018
  • Demurrer; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' DEMURRERS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; DEMURRERS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF CHAD R. FITZGERALD

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • Request for Judicial Notice; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2018
  • NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2018
  • Notice of Related Case; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/06/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Affeld Grivakes LLP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC701231    Hearing Date: February 27, 2020    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

AFFELD GRIVAKES LLP,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DAVID SEYDE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC701231

Hearing Date: February 27, 2020

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

ATTORNEY ERIC BJORGUM, counsel for defendant Kennedy Outdoor advertising, llc’s MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

  1. MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

    Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. section 284 states that “[t]he attorney in an action or special proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination” upon either consent of both client and attorney, or upon the order of the court under application of either the client of the attorney, after notice from one to the other. Cal. Rule of Court 3.1362 states the requirements for a motion to be relieved as counsel under Code Civ. Proc. section 284. No memorandum is required, but the motion must be accompanied by (1) a declaration stating why a motion has been brought instead of filing a consent (without compromising attorney-client confidentiality), (2) proof of service of the motion, and (3) all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known. Additionally, “[t]he proposed order relieving counsel must be prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (form MC-053) and must be lodged with the court with the moving papers.”

    The present motion pertains to Attorney Eric Bjorgum, counsel for Defendant Kennedy Outdoor Advertising, LLC. The motion complies with the above requirements.

    Attorney Eric Bjorgum’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Kennedy Outdoor Advertising is GRANTED.

    Attorney to give notice.

Date: February 27, 2020

_____________________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC701231    Hearing Date: February 26, 2020    Dept: 78

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

AFFELD GRIVAKES LLP,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DAVID SEYDE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC701231

Hearing Date: February 26, 2020

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

ATTORNEY ERIC BJORGUM, counsel for defendant brian kennedy’S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

  1. MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

    Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. section 284 states that “[t]he attorney in an action or special proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination” upon either consent of both client and attorney, or upon the order of the court under application of either the client of the attorney, after notice from one to the other. Cal. Rule of Court 3.1362 states the requirements for a motion to be relieved as counsel under Code Civ. Proc. section 284. No memorandum is required, but the motion must be accompanied by (1) a declaration stating why a motion has been brought instead of filing a consent (without compromising attorney-client confidentiality), (2) proof of service of the motion, and (3) all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known. Additionally, “[t]he proposed order relieving counsel must be prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (form MC-053) and must be lodged with the court with the moving papers.”

    The present motion pertains to Attorney Eric Bjorgum, counsel for Defendant Brian Kennedy. The motion complies with the above requirements.

    Attorney Eric Bjorgum’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Defendant Brian Kennedy is GRANTED.

    Attorney to give notice.

Date: February 26, 2020

_____________________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC701231    Hearing Date: December 04, 2019    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

AFFELD GRIVAKES LLP, a California limited liability partnership;

Plaintiffs,

vs.

DAVID SEYDE, an individual, et al.;

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC701231

Hearing Date:

December 4, 2019

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

PLAINTIFF AFFELD GRIVAKES LLP’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY AGREEMENT

Plaintiff Affeld Grivakes LLP’s Motion to Compel Compliance is GRANTED. The requested documents are to be produced as provided in the statement of compliance within 20 days of the date of this order.

No sanctions are awarded.

Factual Background

This is an action for unpaid legal fees. The Complaint alleges as follows. Defendants David Seyde (“Seyde”) and Brian Kennedy (“Kennedy”) obtained legal services from Plaintiff Affeld Grivakes LLP (“Plaintiff”) without intent to pay the full cost of services and have failed to pay the approximately $600,000 balance in legal fees owed to Plaintiff. (Complaint ¶¶ 4-9.) The action was made against Seyde and Kennedy, along with Edge Outdoor Advertising, LLC, Edge Outdoor Media, LLC, ZoomKube, LLC, and Kennedy Outdoor Advertising, LLC (collectively with Seyde and Kennedy, the “Defendants”). (Complaint at p.1.) Plaintiff represented Seyde in a litigation matter from May 17, 2013 to June 15, 2016. (Complaint ¶ 38.) Plaintiff represented Kennedy, along with the other Defendants in the same litigation matter from November 2015 to June 15, 2016. (Complaint ¶¶ 39-40.)

procedural history

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on April 6, 2018, alleging five causes of action:

  1. Breach of Written Contract;

  2. Quantum Meruit;

  3. Fraud;

  4. Theft of Labor; and

  5. Rescission.

On December 31, 2018, Defendant Kennedy filed a Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions regarding production of documents.

On January 1, 2019, Defendants Kennedy and Kennedy Outdoor Advertising, LLC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication.

On March 15, 2019, an Informal Discovery Conference took place.

On May 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendant Kennedy to appear for a deposition, which the Court granted.

On August 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, scheduled to be heard February 4, 2020.

On October 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Compliance with Discovery Agreement.

No Opposition has been filed.

Discussion

  1. MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE

Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to produce billing and payment records from other law firms pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320, subdivision (a). (Motion at p. 3.) Plaintiff served Defendants with Requests for Production in December 2018, which sought among others, the billing and payment records. (Motion at p. 4.) Defendants’ responses to such Requests stated that they would produce the records to the extent they exist and in their possession, custody, and control. (Robinson Decl., Exhs. 7-8.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ counsel brought a box of records relating to one prior law firm and said that there were at least two other boxes, but did not allow Plaintiff to keep or scan the records and later claimed that they had no documents to produce. (Motion at p. 5.) Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have refused to produce further records citing that they have no documents to produce and that they are “not within the scope of discovery.” (Motion at p. 5.)

Plaintiff argues that such records are relevant because this case involves Defendants’ alleged failure to pay Plaintiff’s legal services fees, and Plaintiffs allege that Defendants hired numerous other law firms in succession and failed to pay their fees, as well. (Motion at p. 3.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendants agreed to produce the billing and payment records in discovery responses in January 2019 and in meet-and-confer discussions in September 2019. (Motion at p. 3.)

“If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling [… and] thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party's statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320.)

Defendants did not file an opposition to this Motion. The Court will grant the Motion. Defendants’ responses indicated that they would produce responsive records to these requests, which were made full year ago, and they have failed to produce any documents. Defendants have failed to provide an explanation for the delay or an argument for privilege.

The Motion to Compel is GRANTED. The requested documents are to be produced as provided in the statement of compliance within 20 days of the date of this order.

  1. SANCTIONS

If a motion to compel deposition is granted, “the court shall impose a monetary sanction…in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(g).)

The Court notes that Plaintiff has not requested sanctions.

Plaintiff to give notice.

DATED: December 4, 2019

________________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court