This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/17/2019 at 07:30:56 (UTC).

BARBARA DARWISH VS. DENNIS P RILEY

Case Summary

On 12/28/2017 BARBARA DARWISH filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against DENNIS P RILEY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Van Nuys Courthouse East located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JOHN J. KRALIK, ELAINE W. MANDEL and SHIRLEY K. WATKINS. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6660

  • Filing Date:

    12/28/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Van Nuys Courthouse East

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

JOHN J. KRALIK

ELAINE W. MANDEL

SHIRLEY K. WATKINS

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

1117 WATERLOO ST. TRUST

BARBARA DARWISH AND DAVID DARWISH

3055 LANDA ST. TRUST

PICKFORD ST. TRUST

ALMONT TRUST

5742 CORBIN TRUST

5127 AVENIDA HACIENDA TRUST

AHIAB INC. WYOMING CORPORATION

14410 FRIAR ST. TRUST

809 N. ALVARADO TRUST

25 PESETAS LLC A WYOMING LIMITED

1132 HYPERION AVE. TRUST

Defendants

RILEY DENNIS P

RILEY DEMARAIS

DOES 1-10 INCLUSIVE

VAUGHN JACK

RODRIGUEZ CARLOS

HERNANDEZ ESMERALDA

HART WAYNE

KREITENBERG RENA E.

9 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

LITTLE JAMES JEFFERY

STILLMAN PHILIP HARRIS

Defendant Attorneys

RILEY DENNIS PATRICK

VO MIKE N.

VO MIKE KHOA NHU

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

2/2/2018: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

2/5/2018: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

2/9/2018: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

Ex Parte Application

2/13/2018: Ex Parte Application

Unknown

2/16/2018: Unknown

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

3/2/2018: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Unknown

3/7/2018: Unknown

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

4/19/2018: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

11/8/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

4/19/2019: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

Declaration

4/19/2019: Declaration

Ex Parte Application

4/23/2019: Ex Parte Application

Opposition

4/25/2019: Opposition

Objection

4/30/2019: Objection

Declaration

4/30/2019: Declaration

Request for Judicial Notice

4/30/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

5/6/2019: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

Unknown

10/2/2018: Unknown

65 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/11/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department T, Shirley K. Watkins, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2019
  • Declaration (Declaration of REK re Service of Opposition Documents); Filed by Wayne Hart (Defendant); Esmeralda Hernandez (Defendant); Ernest Johnson (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2019
  • Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore ((Josslyn Gordon, CSR #10284)); Filed by Dennis P. Riley (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/11/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication) of 07/11/2019 and a copy of the Ruling on Objections filed 7-10-2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2019
  • Order (Ruling on Objections: Defendants' Objections to the Declaration of Eden Darwish Filed in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on the Second and Fifth Causes of Action (CCP S 437c)); Filed by Wayne Hart (Defendant); Esmeralda Hernandez (Defendant); Ernest Johnson (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Wayne Hart (Defendant); Esmeralda Hernandez (Defendant); Ernest Johnson (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2019
  • Declaration (of Ernest Johnson); Filed by Wayne Hart (Defendant); Esmeralda Hernandez (Defendant); Ernest Johnson (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2019
  • Opposition (to Motion for Summary Adjudication); Filed by Wayne Hart (Defendant); Esmeralda Hernandez (Defendant); Ernest Johnson (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/08/2019
  • Declaration (of Carlos Rodriguez); Filed by Wayne Hart (Defendant); Esmeralda Hernandez (Defendant); Ernest Johnson (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
106 More Docket Entries
  • 02/09/2018
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by 1043 Curson Avenue Trust (Plaintiff); 1117 Waterloo St. Trust (Plaintiff); 1132 Hyperion Ave. Trust (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2018
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by 1043 Curson Avenue Trust (Plaintiff); 1117 Waterloo St. Trust (Plaintiff); 1132 Hyperion Ave. Trust (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2018
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by 1043 Curson Avenue Trust (Plaintiff); 1117 Waterloo St. Trust (Plaintiff); 1132 Hyperion Ave. Trust (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2018
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by 1043 Curson Avenue Trust (Plaintiff); 1117 Waterloo St. Trust (Plaintiff); 1132 Hyperion Ave. Trust (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2018
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by 1043 Curson Avenue Trust (Plaintiff); 1117 Waterloo St. Trust (Plaintiff); 1132 Hyperion Ave. Trust (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2018
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by 1043 Curson Avenue Trust (Plaintiff); 1117 Waterloo St. Trust (Plaintiff); 1132 Hyperion Ave. Trust (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2017
  • Summons-Issued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by 1043 Curson Avenue Trust (Plaintiff); 1117 Waterloo St. Trust (Plaintiff); 1132 Hyperion Ave. Trust (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by 1043 Curson Avenue Trust (Plaintiff); 1117 Waterloo St. Trust (Plaintiff); 1132 Hyperion Ave. Trust (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: LC106660    Hearing Date: December 22, 2020    Dept: T

DARWISH V. RILEY

LC106660

TENTATIVE RULING: 12/22/2020

DEFENDANT JACK VAUGHN’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL – NO OPPOSITION FILED

GRANT AS TO REQUEST TO PRODUCE: 1, 20, 21, 22, 23 AND 25. MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF BARBARA DARWISH AND HER ATTORNEY PHILIP STILLMAN, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, PURSUANT TO CCP 2023.010, DISCOVERY ABUSE, IN THE SUM OF $1500 REASONABLE FEES AND FILING FEE OF $60 FOR TOTAL OF $1560 PAYABLE TO CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNT OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS

Code compliant responses pursuant to CCP section 2031.230 and 2021.240 and production within 20 days. Tax returns are not required to be produced. Attorney work product protected documents must be generally described in an privilege log. No confidential communications between a party and his/her counsel need be identified or produced.

______________________

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS: 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24 and 25: DENIED. EACH RESPONSE HAS AN UNEQUOVICAL ADMISSION OR DENIAL. THE REMAINDER OF EACH RESPONSE IS CLEARLY THE RESPONSE TO FORM INTERROGATORY NO. 17.1. AT TRIAL, THE RESPONSE WILL BE LIMITED TO THE ADMISSION OR DENIAL ONLY. SANCTIONS ARE DENIED.

______________________

FORM INTERROGATORIES: FURTHER VERIFIED RESPONSES AS NOTED BELOW WITHIN 20 DAYS. MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF BARBARA DARWISH AND HER ATTORNEY PHILIP STILLMAN, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, PURSUANT TO CCP 2023.010, DISCOVERY ABUSE, IN THE SUM OF $2000 REASONABLE FEES AND FILING FEE OF $60 FOR TOTAL OF $2060 PAYABLE TO CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNT OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL WITHIN 30 DAYS

7.1: GRANT. Further responses to 7.1(b) specifying the nature and location of the damage without reference to other documents, and response to (c) and (d) to which there was no response.

7.2: GRANT: Further responses to 7.2(a), (b) and (c).

9.1: GRANT: Further responses to 9(a), (b), (c) and (d).

9.2: GRANT: Further response without reference to other pleadings.

12.1: GRANT. Further response broken down by each subpart (a) – (d).

12.4: GRANT. Further response broken down by each subpart (a) – (e).

12.7: GRANT in full.

50.2: GRANT in full. Each subpart must be responded to.

MOTION TO COMPEL SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES:  PER MOVING PARTY, HAS BEEN RESOLVED.

Case Number: LC106660    Hearing Date: November 23, 2020    Dept: T

BARBARA DARWISH etc., et. al.

Plaintiff,

vs.

DENNIS P. RILEY; et. al.

Defendants.

CASE NO: LC106660

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIRD-PARTY DEPONENT APPROVED PLANS INC. (API) SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR ITS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S JANUARY 3, 2020 ORDER COMPELLING API’S COMPLIANCE WITH DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

Dept. T

8:30 a.m.

November 23, 2020

[TENTATIVE] ORDER: The Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Third-Party deponent Approved Plans Inc. (API) should not be held in contempt for its failure to comply with the Court’s January 3, 2020 Order compelling API’s compliance with Defendants’ deposition subpoena for production of business records is GRANTED. An OSC re: Contempt is set for ____________ , 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. T. This hearing will be an arraignment hearing. Defendants are ordered to personally serve a notice of OSC re: Contempt upon API and file the proof of service prior to the hearing.

INTRODUCTION

Defendants Jack Vaughn, Esmeralda Hernandez, Wayne Hart, Carlos Rodriguez and Ernest Johnson (collectively “Defendants”) move for an Order to Show Cause Why Third-Party deponent Approved Plans Inc. (“API”) should not be held in contempt for its failure to comply with the Court’s January 3, 2020 Order compelling API’s compliance with Defendants’ deposition subpoena for production of business records and request for sanctions against API in the amount of $3,060. The motion is unopposed.

DISCUSSION

Defendants provide that API was notified of the Court’s January 3, 2020 order requiring API to comply with the deposition subpoena and produce documents responsive to request nos. 1, 2, and 5. (Riley Decl. ¿6, Exh. 3.) Despite notice of the Court’s order, Defendants provide that API has not yet complied with the Court’s order. For this failure to comply, there is good cause to set an OSC re: Contempt against API. Defendants’ request for sanctions is found to be reasonable.

Case Number: LC106660    Hearing Date: July 01, 2020    Dept: T

BARBARA DARWISH and DAVID DARWISH, etc.; et. al.

Plaintiff,

vs.

DENNIS P. RILEY; et. al.

Defendants.

CASE NO: LC106660

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Dept. T

8:30 a.m.

July 1, 2020

[TENTATIVE] ORDER: The Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

1. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Barbara Darwish, etc., et. al. ("Plaintiffs") move for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") wherein Plaintiffs request to replace Plaintiff Logerm, LLC with non-party Gingko Rose, LP ("Gingko") solely as to the Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action. Defendants Jack Vaughn, Esmeralda Hernandez, Wayne Hart, Carlos Rodriguez and Ernest Johnson ("Defendants") oppose the motion. No reply has been filed.

2. DISCUSSION

The Court rejects Defendants' procedural arguments as to compliance with CRC 3.1324. First, Plaintiffs proposed "red-lined" version of the SAC (Stillman Decl. Exh. 2) is sufficient to identify the changes to the pleading. Plaintiffs could have more effectively done so using word processing instead of handwriting, but this redlining is still effective. The redlining is sufficient to state the proposed additions, deletions, and modifications in accordance with the requirements under CRC 3.1324(a)(2)-(3). Next, Plaintiffs' counsel sufficiently identifies the effect of the amendment and sufficiently asserts plaintiffs’ argument as to necessity and propriety of the changes and the reason why the changes were not made earlier. (Stillman Decl. 3.) The Court acknowledges that the declaration is thin, but it is still sufficient, especially in light of the memorandum of points and authorities' further explanation of the purpose to eliminate the issue of standing. (See motion 2:13-3:10.) Alternatively, even if the Court were to find the declaration problematic, the issue would not necessitate a denial of this motion with prejudice. It is in the interest of justice to address this issue now given the likelihood of the declaration's modification with more information about the facts giving rise to the amendment based on the memorandum of points and authorities addressing this issue.

As to discovery of the new fact, Plaintiffs argue they discovered the need to add Ginkgo Rose as a party plaintiff after the Court ruled on Defendant's motion for summary judgment/adjudication on February 21, 2020. However, Plaintiffs are shown to have knowledge of Ginkgo Rose's ownership interest in the property as far back as 2014, as seen in the declaration of David Darwish. (Riley Decl. 5, Exh. 3.) This document shows Plaintiffs' knowledge of Gingko Rose's ownership interest in the Hyperion Property and thus standing in this action. At the least, there is shown delay in not seeking relief earlier. However, delay alone is insufficient to deny the requested relief. Defendants must show prejudice. (Solit v. Tokai Bank (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.) There is no showing of prejudice to Defendants. Defendants' contention that Plaintiffs' knowledge of Ginko Rose's ownership of Hyperion Property at an earlier time does not mean that Defendants do not need to show prejudice resulting from the delay. Defendants' reliance on Woo v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 169, 177 is unavailing because it involves the relation back doctrine for a new defendant, not a new plaintiff. Additionally, considering the amount of litigation between these parties, the amendment is beneficial to Defendants in that the real party in interest is prosecuting the action which would eliminate the risk of subsequent actions against Defendants.

A complaint may be amended to substitute a new plaintiff where it is determined the named plaintiff is not the proper party to maintain the alleged claims, so long as the amendment does not present an entirely new set of facts and the defendant is not prejudiced. Jensen v. Royal Pools (1975) 48 Cal. App. 3d 717, 721 (substitution of new plaintiffs proper where original plaintiff was found to have no standing to prosecute action as a result of a court decision issued after original complaint had been filed.) There are no new facts alleged in the proposed SAC and there does not appear to be any prejudice to Defendants (other than delay and the costs associated with the delay in seeking the relief.)

Additionally, the Court rejects Defendants' arguments that Plaintiffs have waived their right to bring this motion because the Court ruled on Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Opposition 7:24-10:5.) Defendants cite supporting authority showing that it is improper for a plaintiff to amend a pleading to defeat a summary judgment motion because it presents a "moving target." That is not the situation here. The Court already decided the summary judgment motion and there is no pending summary judgment motion that the amended pleading would seek to defeat. Plaintiffs are not otherwise bound by a decision to pursue standing in their own name earlier in the litigation when they realize it is more prudent to add Gingko Rose as a plaintiff. Defendants fail to cite any specific supporting authority that shows Plaintiffs' delay to address the concern raised in Defendants' motion for summary judgment decided in February 2020 is fatal to Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend.

Similarly, the Court rejects Defendants' arguments that this amendment is a sham. (Opposition 10:6-11:17.) The proposed SAC adds Gingko as a plaintiff in lieu of Logerm, as Plaintiffs correctly contend to eliminate any concern regarding its absence as a plaintiff. This is not a contradictory allegation but a clarifying allegation in light of the Court's earlier rulings.

Lastly, Defendants argue the statute of limitations ("SOL") bars the addition of Gingko Rose to the fourth and fifth causes of action ("COA"). However, Defendants' arguments misinterpret the facts presented. There are no new facts being added to the proposed SAC. The facts remain the same as alleged in the FAC. Further, the two COAs are not changed. Without any change in facts or claims, there is no new independent right being alleged. The only change being made is to add in the real party in interest so that a party plaintiff can have standing to sue on the claims. Because no new facts or claims are being asserted, there is relation back to the filing of the original complaint and the SOL is not a bar to the instant amendment.

3. CONCLUSION

The Second Amended Complaint is to be separately filed within 20 days and summons on Second Amended Complaint to issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED, CLERK TO GIVE NOTICE.