This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/14/2018 at 05:25:03 (UTC).

AMERICAN GRANDSTAND SEATING CO INC VS UNITED PRODUCTION SERV

Case Summary

On 04/28/2017 AMERICAN GRANDSTAND SEATING CO INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against UNITED PRODUCTION SERV. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JAMES C. CHALFANT and JOHN P. DOYLE. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9602

  • Filing Date:

    04/28/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

JAMES C. CHALFANT

JOHN P. DOYLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

AMERICAN GRANDSTAND SEATING COMPANY

Respondents and Defendants

DOES 1 TO 10

BROWN TAMI

UNITED PROTECTION SERVICES INCORPORATION

BROWN TAMARA

BROWN JOHN

TAMARA BROWN AKA TAMI BROWN

JOHN BROWN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

MONTGOMERY MICHAEL B. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

12/15/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Minute Order

1/19/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

11/30/2017: Minute Order

NOTICE OF COURT SETTINGS

12/4/2017: NOTICE OF COURT SETTINGS

Minute Order

10/25/2017: Minute Order

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL-CIVIL

10/25/2017: ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL-CIVIL

ORDERS AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

10/25/2017: ORDERS AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL-CIVIL

10/25/2017: ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL-CIVIL

NOTICE OF RULING AT HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S CONTINUED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER

10/16/2017: NOTICE OF RULING AT HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S CONTINUED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

10/12/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

10/12/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

10/12/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

10/6/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

Minute Order

10/2/2017: Minute Order

SUMMONS

4/28/2017: SUMMONS

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR ACCOUNTING, CONVERSION, AND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

4/28/2017: VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR ACCOUNTING, CONVERSION, AND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Minute Order

5/3/2017: Minute Order

APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; ETC.

5/3/2017: APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; ETC.

35 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/19/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 am in Department 58, John P. Doyle, Presiding; Status Conference (2) MEDIATION SETTING;3) OSC RE DEFAULT JUDGMENT;FSC 04/17/18JT 04/23/18) - Case Dismissed/Disposed

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/12/2018
  • DocketDefault Entered (UNITED PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC., A CORPORATION; JOHN BROWN; BROWN UNITED INC., A CORPORATION TAMARA BROWN AKA TAMI BROWN ); Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/15/2017
  • DocketRequest to Enter Default (REJECT FOR UNITED; JOHN BROWN; BROWN UNITED; TAMI BROWN-#5.9. ); Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/30/2017
  • Docketat 08:30 am in Department 58, John P. Doyle, Presiding; Order to Show Cause (REGARDING ENTRY OF DEFAULT ANDDEFAULT JUDGMENT) - Matter continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/25/2017
  • Docketat 08:30 am in Department 58, John P. Doyle, Presiding; Motion - Granted in Part

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/25/2017
  • DocketOrder (GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL - UNITED PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC. ); Filed by Former Attorney for Def/Respondent

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/25/2017
  • DocketOrder (AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/25/2017
  • DocketOrder (GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELEIVED AS COUNSEL - BROWN UNITED, INC. ); Filed by Former Attorney for Def/Respondent

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/12/2017
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/06/2017
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
9 More Docket Entries
  • 09/19/2017
  • DocketMotion (HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR OSC RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/24/2017
  • Docketat 08:32 am in Department 58, John P. Doyle, Presiding; OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv (*CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE**DEMURRER TO COMLAINT*) - Trial Date Set

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/10/2017
  • DocketNotice of Continuance; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/05/2017
  • DocketDeclaration (OF CARL I. S. MUELLER PURSUANT TO CAL. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 430.41(A)(2) TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/08/2017
  • DocketNotice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/08/2017
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/03/2017
  • Docketat 08:30 am in Department 85, James C. Chalfant, Presiding; Exparte proceeding - Denied

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/03/2017
  • DocketEx-Parte Application; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/03/2017
  • DocketDeclaration (OF MIKE BROWN ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 04/28/2017
  • DocketComplaint

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****9602 Hearing Date: February 8, 2022 Dept: 58

American Grandstand Seating Co., Inc. v. United Production Services, Inc., et al. ****9602

Tentative Ruling: Moving Parties Motion for Additional Time for a Deposition

Background

On April 28, 2017 Plaintiff American Grandstand Seating, Co., Inc., (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint (the “First Action”) asserting causes of action for (1) accounting, (2) conversion, and (3) injunctive relief against United Production Services, Inc. (“United”), Brown United (“Brown”), John Brown (“John”), and Tamara Brown (“Tamara”).

On January 10, 2018, United, John, and Tamara entered into a settlement agreement with Plaintiff and Michael H. Brown (“MHB”) (the “Settlement”). On January 19, 2018, by order of this Court, the Lead Action was dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, and jurisdiction was specifically retained by the Court for enforcement of the Settlement.

On February 21, 2019 United, Brown, John, and Tamara filed a Complaint (19STCV06045) (the “Second Action”) challenging the Settlement in the First Action. The Second Action alleges causes of action against Plaintiff, MHB, and Michael D. Brown (“MDB”) (an owner of Plaintiff) for (1) breach of the Settlement, (2) conversion in breach of the Settlement, and (3) fraud in the execution of the Settlement agreement.

On September 27, 2019, the Court found that the First Action and Second Action were related and found that this action was the lead case. On January 8, 2020, the Court consolidated the First Action and the Second Action.

Discussion

Moving Parties Plaintiff, MHB, and MDP (collectively referred to as “Moving Parties”) move the Court for an order compelling additional time to depose John. Specifically Moving Parties seek an additional four hours of time to take John’s deposition.

Absent a court order, “a deposition examination of the witness by all counsel, other than the witness’ counsel of record, shall be limited to seven hours of total testimony” with exceptions not applicable here. (Code Civ. Proc., 2025.290(a).) “The court shall allow additional time, beyond any limits imposed by this section, if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or any other circumstance impedes or delays the examination.” (Ibid.)

Moving Parties contends that John is a key witness, both as a defendant and plaintiff in the two consolidated actions. The two cases relate to the formation of the Settlement, which is alleged to have been breached, and extensive damages have been claimed to have flowed from that breach. John is a key percipient witness to events leading to the Settlement, the formation of that Settlement, and the multiple allegations of breach as well as the only witness to extensive damages claimed by himself, Tamara, Brown, and United. While John has been deposed for a seven-hour session, Moving Parties contend that an additional four hours are needed to inquire into his knowledge of remaining key issues, which include inquiry into documents that were not produced prior to the first deposition, post-settlement events, and his claimed damages.

John has failed to file an opposition to the Motion and failed to point the Court to any facts or evidence that would indicate that allowing Moving Parties additional time to depose him is not proper.

The Court finds that additional time is needed to fairly examine John as Moving Parties need to inquire into key remaining issues, which include inquiry into documents that were not produced prior to the first deposition, post-settlement events, and John’s claimed damages. John did not file an opposition that would indicate that Moving Parties’ request for an additional four hours is improper.

Thus, Moving Parties Motion is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give notice.



Case Number: ****9602    Hearing Date: January 07, 2021    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: January 7, 2021

Case Name: American Grandstand Seating Co., Inc. v. United Production Services,

Inc., et al.

Case No.: ****9602/19STCV06045 (consolidated actions)

Matter: Motion to Enforce Settlement

Moving Party: American Grandstand Seating Co., Inc.

Responding Party: United Production Services, Inc., Brown United, Inc., John Brown, and

Tamara Brown


Tentative Ruling: See Below


On April 28, 2017, American Grandstand Seating Co., Inc. (“AGSC”) filed a complaint in case no. ****9602 against United Production Services, Inc., Brown United, Inc., John Brown, and Tamara Brown (“United Parties”) for (1) accounting, (2)-(3) conversion, and (4) injunctive relief. The complaint in ****9602 alleges failure to provide collateral despite United Parties’ default on two secured promissory notes.

The parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement (“SA”) for ****9602, and on January 19, 2018, the Court dismissed the action but retained jurisdiction pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. ; 664.6.

On February 21, 2019, United Parties filed case no. 19STCV06045 against AGSC, Michael H. Brown, and Michael D. Brown (“AGSC Parties”) for breach of the SA, conversion, and fraud. The complaint in 19STCV06045 alleges that AGSC Parties breached the SA by overtaking equipment and disparaging United Parties. The complaint also alleges promissory fraud in relation to the SA.

On February 18, 2020, the Court consolidated case nos. ****9602 and 19STCV06045.

AGSC now moves to enforce the SA. AGSC specifically seeks the following: (1) judgment against United Parties in the amount of $1,867,915 (purportedly, the unpaid balance for the SA); (2) pre- and post-judgment interest; and (3) dismissal of the complaint in case no. 19STCV06045.

United Parties principally argue there is no justification for a $1,867,915 judgment because “AGSCI Parties breached the Settlement Agreement and converted the [United] Parties’ property by overtaking machinery and equipment that is critical to the [United] Parties’ event staging business. Instead of taking the $2,874,733 in specific machinery and equipment the AGSCI Parties were entitled to under the Settlement Agreement, the AGSCI Parties took machinery and equipment from the [United] Parties valued at $6,923,355.24.”

The Court is authorized to enter judgment pursuant to the stipulated settlement. (Code Civ. Proc. ; 664.6.) In reviewing a motion to enforce a settlement, the Court determines “whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.” (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.) “A settlement is enforceable under section 664.6 only if the parties agreed to all material settlement terms. [Citations.] The court ruling on the motion may consider the parties’ declarations and other evidence in deciding what terms the parties agreed to, and the court’s factual findings in this regard are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. [Citations.] If the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Id. at pp. 1182-1183; see also Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1357 [“Strong public policy in favor of the settlement of civil cases gives the trial court, which approves the settlement, the power to enforce it”].)

On October 19, 2020, the Court tentatively ruled as follows,

AGSC’s request for a money judgment is improper. Enforcement of a settlement under Code Civ. Proc. ; 664.6 requires that the Court enter judgment according to the terms of the settlement agreement. Notably, the SA does not require that money be tendered by United Parties. Rather, it requires that certain collateral be provided. Thus, this too must be the directive of any judgment.

The parties, however, dispute the terms of the SA. AGSC contends the SA requires that all collateral listed as an attachment to the SA be tendered. United Parties argue the SA attaches handwritten notes requiring that only certain equipment having a total value of $2,874,733 be given to AGSC. In other words, the parties have presented two competing versions of the SA. (Cf. Rice Decl., Exhibit A with J. Brown Decl., Exhibit O.) AGSC contends United Parties rely on an unsigned amendment to the SA which the SA precludes; however, United Parties’ appear to present the handwritten notes as a component of the signed SA.

The Court will hold an evidentiary hearing to determine which version of the SA embodies the parties’ agreement. The Court will thereafter enter judgment accordingly. The Court notes that Code Civ. Proc. ; 664.6 does not require breach of a settlement agreement for such agreement to be entered as a judgment. (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1185 [“The statutory language makes it clear, however, that a party moving for the entry of judgment pursuant to a settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 need not establish a breach of contract to support relief under the statute. Accordingly, the court was authorized to enter a judgment pursuant to the settlement regardless of whether Lukes's nonperformance of her settlement obligations was excused.”].) After entry of judgment and discussion with counsel, the Court will determine the propriety of dismissing the complaint in case no. 19STCV06045.

The Court, however, ultimately continued the Motion for supplemental briefing.

Given the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic in Los Angeles County and the voluminous briefings provided to date, the Court requires further time to consider whether to hold an evidentiary hearing or else rule on the papers. Therefore, the Court sets an OSC re: entry of judgment or, in the alternative, an “Evidentiary Hearing Setting” conference for February 22, 2021 at 10 AM.



Case Number: ****9602    Hearing Date: October 19, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: October 19, 2020

Case Name: American Grandstand Seating Co., Inc. v. United Production Services,

Inc., et al.

Case No.: ****9602/19STCV06045 (consolidated actions)

Matter: Motion to Enforce Settlement

Moving Party: American Grandstand Seating Co., Inc.

Responding Party: United Production Services, Inc., Brown United, Inc., John Brown, and

Tamara Brown


Tentative Ruling: The Court will hold an evidentiary hearing.


On April 28, 2017, American Grandstand Seating Co., Inc. (“AGSC”) filed a complaint in case no. ****9602 against United Production Services, Inc., Brown United, Inc., John Brown, and Tamara Brown (“United Parties”) for (1) accounting, (2)-(3) conversion, and (4) injunctive relief. The complaint in ****9602 alleges failure to provide collateral despite United Parties’ default on two secured promissory notes.

The parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement (“SA”) for ****9602, and on January 19, 2018, the Court dismissed the action but retained jurisdiction pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. ; 664.6.

On February 21, 2019, United Parties filed case no. 19STCV06045 against AGSC, Michael H. Brown, and Michael D. Brown (“AGSC Parties”) for breach of the SA, conversion, and fraud. The complaint in 19STCV06045 alleges that AGSC Parties breached the SA by overtaking equipment and disparaging United Parties. The complaint also alleges promissory fraud in relation to the SA.

On February 18, 2020, the Court consolidated case nos. ****9602 and 19STCV06045.

AGSC now moves to enforce the SA. AGSC specifically seeks the following: (1) judgment against United Parties in the amount of $1,867,915 (purportedly, the unpaid balance for the SA); (2) pre- and post-judgment interest; and (3) dismissal of the complaint in case no. 19STCV06045.

United Parties principally argue there is no justification for a $1,867,915 judgment because “AGSCI Parties breached the Settlement Agreement and converted the [United] Parties’ property by overtaking machinery and equipment that is critical to the [United] Parties’ event staging business. Instead of taking the $2,874,733 in specific machinery and equipment the AGSCI Parties were entitled to under the Settlement Agreement, the AGSCI Parties took machinery and equipment from the [United] Parties valued at $6,923,355.24.”

The Court is authorized to enter judgment pursuant to the stipulated settlement. (Code Civ. Proc. ; 664.6.) In reviewing a motion to enforce a settlement, the Court determines “whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement.” (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182.) “A settlement is enforceable under section 664.6 only if the parties agreed to all material settlement terms. [Citations.] The court ruling on the motion may consider the parties’ declarations and other evidence in deciding what terms the parties agreed to, and the court’s factual findings in this regard are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. [Citations.] If the court determines that the parties entered into an enforceable settlement, it should grant the motion and enter a formal judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Id. at pp. 1182-1183; see also Osumi v. Sutton (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1357 [“Strong public policy in favor of the settlement of civil cases gives the trial court, which approves the settlement, the power to enforce it”].)

AGSC’s request for a money judgment is improper. Enforcement of a settlement under Code Civ. Proc. ; 664.6 requires that the Court enter judgment according to the terms of the settlement agreement. Notably, the SA does not require that money be tendered by United Parties. Rather, it requires that certain collateral be provided. Thus, this too must be the directive of any judgment.

The parties, however, dispute the terms of the SA. AGSC contends the SA requires that all collateral listed as an attachment to the SA be tendered. United Parties argue the SA attaches handwritten notes requiring that only certain equipment having a total value of $2,874,733 be given to AGSC. In other words, the parties have presented two competing versions of the SA. (Cf. Rice Decl., Exhibit A with J. Brown Decl., Exhibit O.) AGSC contends United Parties rely on an unsigned amendment to the SA which the SA precludes; however, United Parties’ appear to present the handwritten notes as a component of the signed SA.

The Court will hold an evidentiary hearing to determine which version of the SA embodies the parties’ agreement. The Court will thereafter enter judgment accordingly. The Court notes that Code Civ. Proc. ; 664.6 does not require breach of a settlement agreement for such agreement to be entered as a judgment. (Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1185 [“The statutory language makes it clear, however, that a party moving for the entry of judgment pursuant to a settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 need not establish a breach of contract to support relief under the statute. Accordingly, the court was authorized to enter a judgment pursuant to the settlement regardless of whether Lukes's nonperformance of her settlement obligations was excused.”].) After entry of judgment and discussion with counsel, the Court will determine the propriety of dismissing the complaint in case no. 19STCV06045.



Case Number: ****9602    Hearing Date: February 18, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58

Hearing Date: February 18, 2020

Case Name: American Grandstand Seating, Co., Inc. v. United Production Services, Inc., et al.

Case No.: ****9602 (related to 19STCV06045)

Motion: Motion to Consolidate

Moving Party: American Grandstand Seating, Co., Inc., Michael H. Brown, and Michael D. Brown

Responding Party: Unopposed

Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Consolidate is granted.

American Grandstand Seating, Co., Inc., Michael H. Brown, and Michael D. Brown seek consolidation of related cases nos. ****9602 and 19STCV06045.

Code Civ. Proc. ; 1048(a) provides, “[w]hen actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; ;it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.”

The moving parties provide as follows.

On January 10, 2018, in the Lead Action [(****9602)], United Production Services, Inc., Brown United, Inc., John Brown and Tamara Brown entered into a settlement agreement with American Grandstand Seating Co., Inc. and Michael H. Brown. (RJN, Ex. A, p. 3:19-20.) On January 19, 2018, by order of this Court, the Lead Action was dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, and jurisdiction specifically retained for enforcement of the settlement agreement. (Rice Decl., Ex. A.)

The Brown United Action [(19STCV06045)] was commenced on February 21, 2019, by United Production Services, Inc., Brown United, Inc., John Brown and Tamara Brown, and challenges the very settlement agreement in the Lead Action. The Brown United Action alleges causes of action against American Grandstand Seating Co., Inc., Michael H. Brown and Michael D. Brown (an owner of American Grandstand Seating Co., Inc.) for (1) breach of the settlement agreement, (2) conversion in breach of the settlement agreement, and (3) fraud in the execution of the settlement agreement. (RJN, Ex. A, p. 4:12-13; p. 7:1-2, 19-20.) Plaintiff in the Lead Action now seeks to enforce the settlement agreement.

Good cause having been shown, cases nos. ****9602 and 19STCV06045 are consolidated. The Motion is granted.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where UNITED PROTECTION SERVICES INCORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases where MIKE BROWN GRANDSTANDS INC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MONTGOMERY MICHAEL B.