This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/19/2024 at 13:55:51 (UTC).

BRANDON SIMON VS ROBERT FISHER, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 06/19/2020 BRANDON SIMON filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ROBERT FISHER,. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are THERESA M. TRABER, JOEL L. LOFTON and KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ********

  • Filing Date:

    06/19/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

THERESA M. TRABER

JOEL L. LOFTON

KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

SIMON BRANDON

Defendants and Cross Defendants

USCJ SUPPORTING FOUNDATION INC. A CORPORATION

FISHER ROBERT

UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM A CORPORATION

UNITED SYNAGOGUE YOUTH A CORPORATION

CONGREGATION B?NAI ISRAEL A CORPORATION

TEMPLE OF AARON CONGREGATION

Cross Plaintiff and Defendant

CONGREGATION B?NAI ISRAEL A CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

HENDRICKS CHRISTOPHER L

Defendant Attorneys

ALIMI NAZLI

GOODMAN JAMES A.

LIANG JASON L ESQ.

VU MARY T.

Cross Defendant Attorney

PETERSON LISA LI ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

4/30/2021: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

9/28/2020: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

8/2/2021: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

8/2/2021: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

4/30/2021: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Certificate of Mailing for: (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue the Hearings on M...) of 12/22/2020

12/22/2020: Certificate of Mailing for: (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue the Hearings on M...) of 12/22/2020

Minute Order: (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue the Hearings on M...)

12/22/2020: Minute Order: (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue the Hearings on M...)

Motion to Quash

10/30/2020: Motion to Quash

Motion to Quash: Service of Plaintiff's Complaint Due to Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Filed by Specially Appearing Defendant Temple of Aaron Congregation (named as "Doe 1")

10/30/2020: Motion to Quash: Service of Plaintiff's Complaint Due to Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Filed by Specially Appearing Defendant Temple of Aaron Congregation (named as "Doe 1")

Declaration : of Ken Agranoff

10/30/2020: Declaration : of Ken Agranoff

Declaration : of Ken Agranoff

10/30/2020: Declaration : of Ken Agranoff

Ex Parte Proposed Order

Ex Parte Proposed Order

Ex Parte Proposed Order

Ex Parte Proposed Order

Informal Discovery Conference

Informal Discovery Conference

Order : re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses - ID #881495925473

Order : re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses - ID #881495925473

Order : [Proposed] Order Admitting Melissaa Jampol as Counsel Pro Hac Vice

Order : [Proposed] Order Admitting Melissaa Jampol as Counsel Pro Hac Vice

Order : [Proposed] Order Granting USCJ's Ex Parte Application for Protective Order, etc.

Order : [Proposed] Order Granting USCJ's Ex Parte Application for Protective Order, etc.

Stipulation and Order : Stipulation to Extend deadline to Respond to Complaint

Stipulation and Order : Stipulation to Extend deadline to Respond to Complaint

125 More Documents Available
View All Documents

 

Docket Entries

08/04/2022

DocketUpdated -- Request for Dismissal without prejudice as to defendants: USCJ Supporting Foundation, Inc. and Temple of Aaron Congregation, only: Name Extension: without prejudice as to defendants: USCJ Supporting Foundation, Inc. and Temple of Aaron Congregation, only; As To Parties changed from USCJ SUPPORTING FOUNDATION, INC., a corporation (Defendant), Temple of Aaron Congregation (Defendant) to Temple of Aaron Congregation (Defendant), USCJ SUPPORTING FOUNDATION, INC., a corporation (Defendant)

[+] Read More [-] Read Less
08/04/2022

DocketUpdated -- Request for Dismissal without prejudice as to Cross-Defendant Temple of Aaron, only: Name Extension: without prejudice as to Cross-Defendant Temple of Aaron, only; As To Parties changed from Robert Fisher (Cross-Defendant), Temple of Aaron Congregation (Cross-Defendant) to Temple of Aaron Congregation (Cross-Defendant)

[+] Read More [-] Read Less
08/04/2022

DocketUpdated -- Request for Dismissal without prejudice as to defendant United Synagogue Youth, only: Name Extension: without prejudice as to defendant United Synagogue Youth, only; As To Parties changed from UNITED SYNAGOGUE YOUTH, a corporation (Defendant), Brandon Simon (Plaintiff) to UNITED SYNAGOGUE YOUTH, a corporation (Defendant), Brandon Simon (Plaintiff)

[+] Read More [-] Read Less
08/04/2022

DocketUpdated -- Request for Dismissal with prejudice [as to the complaint, only]: Name Extension: with prejudice [as to the complaint, only]; As To Parties changed from Robert Fisher (Defendant), UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM, a corporation (Defendant), USCJ SUPPORTING FOUNDATION, INC., a corporation (Defendant), UNITED SYNAGOGUE YOUTH, a corporation (Defendant), Temple of Aaron Congregation (Defendant), CONGREGATION BNAI ISRAEL, a corporation (Defendant) to UNITED SYNAGOGUE YOUTH, a corporation (Defendant), USCJ SUPPORTING FOUNDATION, INC., a corporation (Defendant), Robert Fisher (Defendant), CONGREGATION BNAI ISRAEL, a corporation (Defendant), UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM, a corporation (Defendant), Temple of Aaron Congregation (Defendant)

[+] Read More [-] Read Less
08/04/2022

DocketUpdated -- Request for Dismissal with prejudice [as to the complaint, only]: As To Parties changed from UNITED SYNAGOGUE YOUTH, a corporation (Defendant), USCJ SUPPORTING FOUNDATION, INC., a corporation (Defendant), Temple of Aaron Congregation (Defendant), Robert Fisher (Defendant), CONGREGATION BNAI ISRAEL, a corporation (Defendant), UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM, a corporation (Defendant) to Temple of Aaron Congregation (Defendant), UNITED SYNAGOGUE YOUTH, a corporation (Defendant), UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM, a corporation (Defendant), Robert Fisher (Defendant), USCJ SUPPORTING FOUNDATION, INC., a corporation (Defendant), CONGREGATION BNAI ISRAEL, a corporation (Defendant)

[+] Read More [-] Read Less
08/04/2022

DocketFinal Status Conference - [as to the Cross-Complaint, only] scheduled for 10/11/2022 at 09:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 47

[+] Read More [-] Read Less
08/04/2022

DocketJury Trial - [as to the Cross-Complaint, only] scheduled for 10/31/2022 at 09:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 47

[+] Read More [-] Read Less
08/04/2022

DocketPost-Mediation Status Conference - [as to the Cross-Complaint, only] scheduled for 08/05/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 47

[+] Read More [-] Read Less
08/04/2022

DocketOn the Complaint filed by Brandon Simon on 06/19/2020, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by Brandon Simon as to the entire action

[+] Read More [-] Read Less
08/04/2022

DocketRequest for Dismissal with prejudice as to the entire action of all parties and all causes of action [consent by Cross-Complainant included]; Filed by: Brandon Simon (Plaintiff); As to: UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM, a corporation (Defendant); Robert Fisher (Defendant); UNITED SYNAGOGUE YOUTH, a corporation (Defendant) et al.

[+] Read More [-] Read Less
203 More Docket Entries
View All Docket Entries
07/01/2020

DocketCertificate of Mailing for [PI General Order], Standing Order re PI Procedures and Hearing Dates; Filed by: Clerk

[+] Read More [-] Read Less
06/19/2020

DocketComplaint; Filed by: Brandon Simon (Plaintiff); As to: UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM, a corporation (Defendant); Robert Fisher (Defendant); UNITED SYNAGOGUE YOUTH, a corporation (Defendant) et al.

[+] Read More [-] Read Less
06/19/2020

DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Brandon Simon (Plaintiff); As to: UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM, a corporation (Defendant); Robert Fisher (Defendant); UNITED SYNAGOGUE YOUTH, a corporation (Defendant) et al.

[+] Read More [-] Read Less
06/19/2020

DocketCertificate CERTIFICATE OF MERIT RE BRANDON SIMON; Filed by: Brandon Simon (Plaintiff); As to: UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM, a corporation (Defendant); Robert Fisher (Defendant); UNITED SYNAGOGUE YOUTH, a corporation (Defendant) et al.

[+] Read More [-] Read Less
06/19/2020

DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Brandon Simon (Plaintiff); As to: UNITED SYNAGOGUE OF CONSERVATIVE JUDAISM, a corporation (Defendant); Robert Fisher (Defendant); UNITED SYNAGOGUE YOUTH, a corporation (Defendant) et al.

[+] Read More [-] Read Less
06/19/2020

DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

[+] Read More [-] Read Less
06/19/2020

DocketFinal Status Conference scheduled for 12/03/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 29

[+] Read More [-] Read Less
06/19/2020

DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 12/17/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 29

[+] Read More [-] Read Less
06/19/2020

DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal scheduled for 06/16/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 29

[+] Read More [-] Read Less
06/19/2020

DocketCase assigned to Hon. Kristin S. Escalante in Department 29 Spring Street Courthouse

[+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******3266    Hearing Date: April 6, 2021    Dept: 47

TENTATIVE RULING IN *******3266 BRANDON SIMON vs ROBERT FISHER
Defendant United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism filed its challenge to this judicial officer under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 on February 19, 2021, and it was denied on the same day as untimely.  On March 3, 2021, Defendant timely filed its motion for reconsideration of the order denying its 170.6 challenge, supported by evidence that was not before the Court at the time the challenge was rejected.  The matter is set for hearing on April 6, 2021.  
The Court grants the motion for reconsideration as properly made but reaffirms its prior ruling rejecting Defendant’s challenge under section 170.6 as untimely.  
In this case, the Court notified defense counsel that this judicial officer was assigned for all purposes to this case by mailing a notice to all counsel on January 29, 2021, making any peremptory challenge due no later than 20 days later, or by February 18, 2021.  (Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6(a)(2); Motion Picture & Television Fund Hosp. v. Superior Court (2001) 88 Cal. App. 4th 488, 494 [response period extended by five days when service is by mail].) Defense counsel acknowledges receipt of this notice on February 3, 2021.  The form notice also directed Plaintiff to provide notice to all parties which he did on February 8, 2021.  
Based on its moving papers, Defendant attempted to file its 170.6 challenge electronically on February 17, 2021, but it was rejected on February 18, 2021 with a note indicating that the document is exempt from eFiling and must be submitted conventionally by filing it directly in Department 47.  (Vu Decl., Exh. 3.)  
The issues raised by Defendants’ motion are whether the time for asserting a 170.6 challenge was extended by the second notice served by Plaintiff and whether the challenge was timely “made to the assigned judge or to the presiding judge” and, thus, “duly presented,” when Defendants attempted to file the challenge electronically on February 17, 2021.  A related question is whether the Court has the discretion to overlook any error on Defendants’ part that led to the late filing.  
Section 170.6 provides, in relevant part: 
(2) A party to, or an attorney appearing in, an action or proceeding may establish this prejudice by an oral or written motion without prior notice supported by affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury, or an oral statement under oath, that the judge, court commissioner, or referee before whom the action or proceeding is pending, or to whom it is assigned, is prejudiced against a party or attorney, or the interest of the party or attorney, so that the party or attorney cannot, or believes that he or she cannot, have a fair and impartial trial or hearing before the judge, court commissioner, or referee. . . .     If directed to the trial of a civil cause that has been assigned to a judge for all purposes, the motion shall be made to the assigned judge or to the presiding judge by a party within 15 days after notice of the all purpose assignment, or if the party has not yet appeared in the action, then within 15 days after the appearance. . . .
(3) A party to a civil action making that motion under this section shall serve notice on all parties no later than five days after making the motion.
(4) If the motion is duly presented, and the affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury is duly filed or an oral statement under oath is duly made, thereupon and without any further act or proof, the judge supervising the master calendar, if any, shall assign some other judge, court commissioner, or referee to try the cause or hear the matter. . . .
(Code of Civil Procedure ; 170.6 [Emphasis added].)
“Section 170.6 guarantees ‘to litigants an extraordinary right to disqualify a judge. The right is “automatic” in the sense that a good faith belief in prejudice is alone sufficient, proof of facts showing actual prejudice not being required.’ The object of this section is to provide the party and attorney with a substitution of judge to safeguard the right to a fair trial or hearing. This section is intended to ensure confidence in the judiciary and avoid the suspicion which might arise from the belief of a litigant that the judge is biased where such belief is difficult, if not impossible, to prove. The section is liberally construed and the trend is to grant relief unless absolutely forbidden by statute.” (People v. Superior Court (Maloy) (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 391, 394–395 [Citations omitted]; see Stephens v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 54, 61–62 [“As a remedial statute, section 170.6 is to be liberally construed in favor of allowing a peremptory challenge, and a challenge should be denied only if the statute absolutely forbids it.”].) 
A. Deadline for Submission of 170.6 Challenge
Defendant contends that the second notice from Plaintiff extended the time for filing a peremptory challenge under section 170.6.  It does not.  The statute provides that a 170.6 challenge must be filed “within 15 days after notice of the all purpose assignment,” as extended by the applicable service method.  Here, there is no question that notice was properly served on Defendant on January 29, 2021 and that it actually received that notice on February 3, 2021 – 15 days before the deadline for filing a challenge under the statute.  That Defendant received a second notice does not extend its time for challenging the all-purpose assignment. 
B. Whether Defendant Properly Presented a 170.6 Challenge on February 17, 2021   
Defendant argues, based on its newly submitted evidence, that the Court should reverse its rejection of the 170.6 challenge because of its attempt to file the challenge through electronic filing on February 17, 2021.  The Court acknowledges that the evidence of Defendant’s failed electronic filing may not have been available for submission to the Court when Defendant resubmitted its 170.6 challenge on February 19, 2021.  Based on this showing, the Court finds that Defendant has met the basic requirement of offering “new” facts in connection with its motion for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.  Upon reconsideration, however, the Court reaffirms its rejection of the 170.6 challenge.  
Defendant urges the Court to accept the 170.6 challenge eFiled on February 17, 2021 under the caselaw that instructs courts to permit such challenges “notwithstanding minor procedural irregularities.”  (Fry v. Superior Court (2013) 222 Cal. App. 4th 475, 483 [Fry].)  It is true that trial courts are not permitted to reject 170.6 challenges based on a lack of strict compliance with the format of a challenge submitted under section 170.6.  As a result, to effectuate the right to exercise a peremptory challenge, courts have permitted “blanket challenges” by a prosecutor, allowed the after-the-fact correction of an unsigned prejudice declaration, and accepted challenges that are not accompanied by anything called a “motion” for relief.  (Fry, supra, at p. 483, and cases discussed therein.)  But the Second District Court of Appeal has made clear that a litigant asserting a 170.6 challenge must comply with the requirement of directing the challenge either to the assigned judge or to the presiding judge, rather than simply effecting a general filing of the challenge.  (Ibid.)    
The Court in Fry v. Superior Court refused to “endorse the practice of filing a section 170.6 challenge at the clerk's window without processing instructions, as to do so risks delay and duplicative work by both the clerk and assigned judge and invites mischief. Because section 170.6 provides that a document may be transmitted to either of two judges it is incumbent upon the petitioner to specify which is intended. The court clerk has no way to know to whom the petitioner intends the challenge to be transmitted and no way of knowing how important that decision is, and should not be forced either to guess the petitioner's intent or make further contact with petitioner to obtain clarification.”  (Id., at p. 483.)  The Fry Court explained that if a party fails to provide proper instructions to direct proper presentation of the 170.6 challenge, “it must bear the risk of delay, including the risk that a statutory time limitation will run.”  The Court clarified that “[b]ecause the peremptory challenge here was directed to no one, it was not ‘made to either [the assigned judge] or the presiding judge, [so] denial of the challenge was correct.”  (Ibid.)  
As in Fry, the e-filing procedure used by Defendant failed to direct the court clerk to deliver the 170.6 challenge either to the assigned judge or to the presiding judge.  Accordingly, it cannot be considered a “duly presented” challenge within the meaning of the statutes.  Nor was it a proper method of presenting such a challenge under the rules of the Los Angeles Superior Court.  As the court clerk noted in the rejection notice, a 170.6 challenge is exempt from e-filing requirements and instead must be submitted directly to the assigned judge or to his or her presiding judge.  (First Amended General Order, filed May 3, 2019, section 4, Exempt Filings, subsection (i) [170.6 challenges “shall not be filed electronically”].)  Such a filing restriction is within the authority of the Los Angeles Superior Court and, thus, dictates the means by which a 170.6 challenge is properly presented to the Court.  (Fry, supra, at p. 485 [superior court may establish filing requirements for 170.6 challenges and expect compliance].) Contrary to Defendant’s suggestion, Emergency Rule 12 did not change this long-standing restriction, as that provision only applies to electronic service of documents not to electronic filing.  
Based on these authorities, the Court finds that Defendant’s 170.6 challenge filed on February 17, 2021 was not “made to the assigned judge or to the presiding judge” within the meaning of section 170.6 and, thus, was properly rejected as not “duly presented” under that statute.  Although Defendant received last-minute notice that the eFiled challenge had been rejected, this was the risk it took in declining to use the required procedures.  (Fry, supra, at p. 483.)   
C. The Court’s Authority to Accept a Late 170.6 Challenge
Defendant suggests that, even if the Court cannot find compliance with section 170.6, it should nonetheless grant relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 128(a)(8) because it is in the interests of justice to do so.  It is this Court’s view that it lacks the authority to accept the late-filed challenge submitted on February 19, 2021. (Briggs v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 312, 318.)  Extending or waiving the statutory deadline for filing a 170.6 challenge is inconsistent with the Court’s 
duty under Code of Civil Procedure section 170 to “decide any proceeding in which he or she is not disqualified.”  (Ibid.)  Even if there were discretion to do so, moreover, the Court would deny such relief.  The general order excluding 170.6 challenges from eFiling has been in place for approximately two years, and the argument that the recent emergency rules changed that procedure is plainly inaccurate.
Accordingly, the Court declines to accept Defendant’s late-filed 170.6 challenge and reaffirms its prior ruling rejecting the February 19, 2021 challenge as untimely.  
The motion for reconsideration is GRANTED, but upon reconsideration, the Court DENIES the relief sought by Defendant. 
Defendant is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling.  
Dated:  April 6, 2021
_____________________________________
Hon. Theresa M. Traber
Superior Court Judge 


Case Number: *******3266    Hearing Date: January 13, 2021    Dept: 29

Brandon Simon v. Robert Fisher, et al.

Court Order Re: Transfer and Reassignment of Complicated Personal Injury (“PI”) Case to An Independent Calendar ("IC") Courtroom from Department 29, a PI Hub Court.

The Court's order Re: Transfer of Complicated Personal Injury Case to an Independent Calendar Court, is posted on the Court's website.

AFTER REVIEW OF THE FILE, THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER:

Department 29 of the Personal Injury Court has determined that the above-entitled action is complicated based upon the number of pretrial hearings and/or the complexity of the issues presented.

At the direction of Department 1, this case is hereby ordered reassigned and transferred to the Central District, Los Angeles, the Honorable Randolph Hammock,  Judge presiding in Department 47 for all purposes except trial. Department 1 hereby delegates to the Independent Calendar Court the authority to assign the cause for trial to that Independent Calendar Court.

Hearing on the above motion and any pending motions or hearings, including trial or status conferences, will be reset, continued or vacated at the direction of the newly assigned Independent Calendar Court. (NOTE:  All hearings currently set in Department 29 of the Spring Street Courthouse are taken off calendar subject to being reset and notified by the receiving court Re:  New hearing dates.)

Judicial Assistant is directed to give notice to Plaintiff, who upon receipt of this notice, is ordered to give notice to all parties of record.



Search Court Records

Why is this public record being published online?