This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/14/2019 at 07:36:00 (UTC).

BEVERLYWOOD HOMES ASSOCIATION INC VS ONIT EDRY ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/27/2017 BEVERLYWOOD HOMES ASSOCIATION INC filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against ONIT EDRY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RICHARD E. RICO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8499

  • Filing Date:

    12/27/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

RICHARD E. RICO

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

BEVERLYWOOD HOMES ASSOCIATION INC

Defendants and Respondents

EDRY JACK

DOES 1 TO 20

EDRY RONIT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

GRODE MATTHEW L. ESQ.

AYOTTE NORMAND ALLISON

PLANTE BRIAN C. ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

LIBO DAVID J. ATTORNEY AT LAW

 

Court Documents

DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

2/20/2018: DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA FAIR HOUSING ACT; ECT.

2/20/2018: CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA FAIR HOUSING ACT; ECT.

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

2/27/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

NOTICE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

3/9/2018: NOTICE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANTS RONIT AND JACK EDRY'S CROSS-COMPLAINT; ETC.

4/24/2018: NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANTS RONIT AND JACK EDRY'S CROSS-COMPLAINT; ETC.

DECLARATION OF PATRICK A. CRAIG, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF DEFENDANTS/CROSS- COMPLAINANTS RONIT AND JACK EDRY'S CROSS-COMPLAINT

4/24/2018: DECLARATION OF PATRICK A. CRAIG, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF DEFENDANTS/CROSS- COMPLAINANTS RONIT AND JACK EDRY'S CROSS-COMPLAINT

DECLARATION OF PATRICK A. CRAIG, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO DEFENDANTS/CROSS- COMPLAINANTS RONIT AND JACK EDRY'S CROSS-COMPLAINT

4/24/2018: DECLARATION OF PATRICK A. CRAIG, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO DEFENDANTS/CROSS- COMPLAINANTS RONIT AND JACK EDRY'S CROSS-COMPLAINT

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANTS RONIT AND JACK EDRY'S CROSS- COMPLAINT

4/24/2018: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANTS RONIT AND JACK EDRY'S CROSS- COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF DEFENDANTS/ CROSS-COMPLAINANTS RONIT AND JACK EDRY'S CROSS-COMPLAINT; ETC.

4/24/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF DEFENDANTS/ CROSS-COMPLAINANTS RONIT AND JACK EDRY'S CROSS-COMPLAINT; ETC.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF UEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANTS RONIT AND JACK EDRY'S CROSS-COMPLAINT

4/24/2018: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF UEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANTS RONIT AND JACK EDRY'S CROSS-COMPLAINT

Unknown

4/25/2018: Unknown

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

4/25/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

4/25/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

Unknown

4/26/2018: Unknown

Unknown

4/26/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

4/27/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF DEMURRER TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE ALLEGED IN DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANTS RONIT AND JACK EDRY'S CROSS-COMPLAINT

6/12/2018: NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF DEMURRER TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE ALLEGED IN DEFENDANTS/CROSS-COMPLAINANTS RONIT AND JACK EDRY'S CROSS-COMPLAINT

OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

6/19/2018: OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

45 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/25/2019
  • Brief-Reply; Filed by Beverlywood Homes Association Inc (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • Association of Attorney; Filed by Beverlywood Homes Association Inc (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Beverlywood Homes Association Inc (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2018
  • Answer (to Ronit Edry and Jack Edry's first Amended Cross-Complaint); Filed by Beverlywood Homes Association Inc (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") (Responses) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2018
  • Minute Order ((Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
75 More Docket Entries
  • 01/17/2018
  • Declaration re: Due Diligence; Filed by Beverlywood Homes Association Inc (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2018
  • Proof of Service by 1st Class Mail

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2018
  • Proof of Service by 1st Class Mail

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2017
  • First Amended Complaint; Filed by Beverlywood Homes Association Inc (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2017
  • FIRSTAMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS & RESTRICTIONS;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Beverlywood Homes Association Inc (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS & RESTRICTIONS; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: BC688499 Hearing Date: September 1, 2021 Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT\n17

TENTATIVE RULING

\n \n \n \n \n
\n

BEVERLYWOOD HOMES ASSOCIATION, INC.

\n

\n

\n vs.

\n

\n

RONIT EDRY, et al.

\n

\n
\n

Case\n No.: BC688499

\n

\n

\n

\n

Hearing Date: September 1, 2021

\n

Ms.\nRonit Edry’s motion for a protective order is DENIED.

On\n12/27/2017, Plaintiff Beverlywood Homes Association (Beverlywood) filed suit\nagainst Ronit and Jack Edry (collectively, the Edrys), alleging: (1) breach of\ndeclaration of covenants, conditions, & restrictions (CCRs); (2) permanent\ninjunction; (3) nuisance; and (4) declaratory relief.

On\n2/20/2018, the Edrys filed a cross-complaint against Beverlywood. On 7/24/2018,\nthe Edrys filed a first amend cross-complaint (FAXC) against Beverlywood,\nalleging: (1) discrimination in violation of California Fair Housing Act; (2)\nbreach of fiduciary duties; (3) negligence; (4) violation of California Civil\nCode section 5205, et seq.; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress\n(IIED); (6) violation of California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices\nAct; and (7) declaratory relief.

Now,\nRonit Edry (Ms. Edry) moves for a protective order barring her deposition from\nbeing videotaped.

Factual Background

This\naction arises out of alleged violations of the Plaintiff’s CCRs. Specifically,\nPlaintiff alleges that Defendants constructed a wall, concrete pad, gate, and\nalso installed lighting and landscaping despite restrictions against\nconstruction within a Setback Area. (Complaint ¶ 19.)

Discussion

Ms.\nEdry claims that a videotape of her deposition would be subject to wide\ndissemination, despite any court order to limit its dissemination, and that\nthis would put her life and the life of those that she protects at risk.\nSpecifically, Ms. Edry claims that she works uncover in coordination with\nvarious law enforcement agencies, as head of intelligence for Magivim, a Los\nAngeles based community safety NGO, and as a licensed Private Investigator.

As stated in Beverly\nHills Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d\n861, 864-865: “It is established that a litigant has the right to take a proper\ndeposition, and to receive responsive answers to proper questions (citations\nomitted) for the purposes of discovery or for use as evidence, or for both\npurposes.”

CCP section\n2025.220, subdivision (a)(5) provides that a party desiring to take the oral\ndeposition of any person may also \n“…record the testimony by audio or video technology…” The right to\nvideotape a deposition was included in the 1980 amendments to the Discovery Act\nin order to provide an alternative method for recording depositions. The\npurpose of this amendment was to permit an additional method of preserving and\npresenting evidence taken at depositions. (Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of\nAssem. Bill No. 2473 (1979-1980 Reg. Sess.). In particular, a videotape\npreserves the gestures and demeanor of witnesses which can help provide visual\nclues to credibility.

Given that\nthe right to videotape a deposition is well-established, it is presumptively proper for a deposition\nto be video recorded. The court’s power\nto order that the deposition shall not be taken, or that it may be taken only\n“in some other manner than as proposed,” is not unlimited. (Beverly Hills,\nsupra, 195 Cal.App.2d at p. 866.) The court’s power to limit the manner\nor scope of a deposition is limited to situations wherein good cause has been\nshown, or where justice requires the exercise of that discretion. (Ibid.)\n

Accordingly, Ms.\nEdry has the burden of proof to show good cause as to why her videotaped deposition\ntestimony should be prohibited.

The Court\nconcludes that Ms. Edry has not shown that good cause exists to order that her\nvideotape deposition not be recorded.

First, Ms.\nEdry has not submitted any declaration from any law enforcement agency that could\nshow that Ms.Edry provides services as an uncover agent or intelligence\nofficer. Moreover, Ms. Edry has not set forth any evidence or facts which could\nshow how a videotaped deposition would compromise any present or future\noperations by the police.

Second, while\nMs. Edry claims to be the head of intelligence for Magivim, Magivim is a\ncommunity-organization which does not investigate or prosecute crimes. Rather,\nit promotes community awareness and safety. Ms. Edry has not submitted any\nevidence which could show that her videotaped deposition would compromise any\nof the work performed by Magivim.

Third, the\nfact that Ms. Edry is licensed as a private investigator or private patrol\nofficer does not confer any privileges to delay or avoid her deposition or to\ndictate the manner in which the deposition is taken.

Fourth, this\ncase concerns a dispute with a homeowners association over the construction of\na wall, concrete pad, gate, and the installation of lighting and landscaping on\nspecific portion of the Edry’s property. Ms. Edry has not submitted any\nevidence which could show that information revealed in her deposition on this\nsubject could put her life, or the life of others, at risk.

Fifth,\nBeverlywood has offered to stipulate to a protective order preventing the use,\ndissemination, or publication of the videotaped deposition to third persons, to\nmembers of the association, or to internet sources. Ms. Edry has not submitted\nsufficient evidence to show that this does not provide sufficient protection against\nmisuse of the video.

Based on the\nforegoing, Ms. Edry’s request for a protective order prohibiting her deposition\nfrom being videotaped is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated: September \n, 2021

Hon. Jon R.\nTakasugi\n Judge of the\nSuperior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must\nsend an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org\nby 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court\nwebsite at www.lacourt.org. If a party submits\non the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must\nidentify the party submitting on the tentative. \nIf all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this\ntentative as the final order. If the department\ndoes not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the\ntentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed\noff calendar.

Due to Covid-19, the court is\nstrongly discouraging in-person appearances. Parties, counsel, and court reporters present\nare subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied\nentry if admission could create a public health risk. The court encourages the parties wishing to\nargue to appear via L.A. Court Connect. \nFor more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult\ntimes is appreciated.

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSuperior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

BEVERLYWOOD HOMES ASSOCIATION, INC.

vs.

RONIT EDRY, et al.

Case No.: BC688499

Hearing Date: September 1, 2021

Beverlywood’s motion to compel the deposition of Ms. Edry is GRANTED. Ms. Edry is to appear for a videotaped deposition within 20 days of entry of this order. Ms. Edry is sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $1,400.

On 12/27/2017, Plaintiff Beverlywood Homes Association (Beverlywood) filed suit against Ronit (Ms. Edry) and Jack Edry (collectively, the Edrys), alleging: (1) breach of declaration of covenants, conditions, & restrictions (CCRs); (2) permanent injunction; (3) nuisance; and (4) declaratory relief.

On 2/20/2018, the Edrys filed a cross-complaint against Beverlywood. On 7/24/2018, the Edrys filed a first amend cross-complaint (FAXC) against Beverlywood, alleging: (1) discrimination in violation of California Fair Housing Act; (2) breach of fiduciary duties; (3) negligence; (4) violation of California Civil Code section 5205, et seq.; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); (6) violation of California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; and (7) declaratory relief.

Now, Beverlywood moves to compel the deposition of Ms. Edry.

Factual Background

This action arises out of alleged violations of the Plaintiff’s CCRs. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants constructed a wall, concrete pad, gate, and also installed lighting and landscaping despite restrictions against construction within a Setback Area. (Complaint ¶ 19.)

Discussion

Beverlywood argues that it has noticed Ms. Edry’s deposition eight times over the course of 20+ months, and each date was continued to accommodate requests and excuses by Ms. Edry. (Geibel Decl., ¶¶ 6,7, Exh. 5.) Plaintiff served the Seventh Notice on June 8, 2021, and noticed the date of 6/23/2021 for the deposition. Like all of the prior deposition notices, the Notice indicated that the deposition would be videotaped. Despite that Ms. Edry’s counsel had agreed to the 6/23/2021 date in advance, and stated no reservations about the deposition being videotaped, Ms. Edry’s counsel informed Plaintiff on 6/17/2021 that Ms. Edry could not appear because the deposition was being videotaped.

In opposition, Ms. Edry argues that she “did not notice in the various deposition Notices that her deposition would be videotaped” and that there is good cause for her deposition not to be videotaped. (Opp., 2: 19-20.)

For the reasons set forth in the Court’s ruling on Ms. Edry’s motion for a protective order, Ms. Edry has not shown good cause exists for the Court to order that her deposition not be videotaped.

Ms. Edry is ordered to appear for a videotaped deposition within 20 days of entry of this order, and must produce all documents in response to the requests for production of documents set forth in the Seventh Notice. Ms. Edry’s unreasonable delays over 20+ months evinces bad faith, and warrants sanctions. Ms. Edry is sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $1,400 ($350/hr x 4 hours).

It is so ordered.

Dated: September , 2021

Hon. Jon R. Takasugi Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.

Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances. Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk. The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where BEVERLYWOOD HOMES ASSOCIATION INC. A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer GRODE MATTHEW LAWRENCE

Latest cases represented by Lawyer PLANTE, BRIAN C

Latest cases represented by Lawyer AYOTTE NORMAND A. ESQ.