BROWN NERI SMITH & KHAN LLP, A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP, AND LAW FIRM VS JAMES A. MCDONALD, ET AL.
Case Summary
Case Details
-
Case Number:
*******1008
-
Filing Date:
01/10/2022
-
Case Status:
Pending - Other Pending
-
Case Type:
Contract - Other Contract
-
Courthouse:
-
County, State:
Los Angeles, California
Judge Details
Presiding Judges
MALCOLM MACKEY
CHRISTOPHER K. LUI
Party Details
Plaintiff
BROWN NERI SMITH & KHAN LLP
Defendants
ALANES YVONNE A.
ART'S ELEGANCE INC.
BAHOUTH MARK
BHAKTA DIPAKCHANDRA
BRIDDLE ROGER
BUNNELL JUSTIN
CAMP KEITH
CAO ERIC BING
CASS WILLIAM
CHAPARRO LUCY
CIURLUINI VIRGINIA
COX CHARLES
COX LAURA
DANH C. TRUONG & YVONNE TRUONG JOINT TRUST
DARMAWAN MIAUW K.
DEAN LI AS TRUSTEE OF THE DEAN LI REVOCABLE TRUST
DICKINSON JANE
DOYLE MICHAEL
DRAUDT CHRISTOPHER
Attorney/Law Firm Details
Plaintiff Attorney
BROWN ETHAN J.
Defendant Attorneys
BENGALI OMAR H.
GALDSTON BENJAMIN
DEER JONATHAN M.
RICHARDS THOMAS K.
Court Documents
1/10/2022: Complaint
1/13/2023: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)
1/13/2023: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE) OF 01/13/2023
1/6/2023: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information
9/27/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)
9/21/2022: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
9/21/2022: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
9/20/2022: Case Management Statement
9/13/2022: Case Management Statement
7/27/2022: Answer
5/20/2022: Notice - NOTICE OF MINUTE ORDER
5/27/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FI...)
6/7/2022: Notice - NOTICE OF MINUTE ORDER
6/27/2022: Order - RULING RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERPLEADER [CONSISTING OF 3 PAGES]
6/27/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTE...)
6/27/2022: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTE...) OF 06/27/2022
4/25/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FI...)
4/22/2022: Notice of Appearance
Docket Entries
- 03/22/2023
-
Hearing03/22/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 76 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Case Management Conference
[-] Read Less
- 03/08/2023
-
Hearing03/08/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 76 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal
[-] Read Less
- 03/08/2023
-
Hearing03/08/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 76 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Why Plaintiff's counsel should not be sanctioned in the amount of $500 for failure to appear at the Case Management Conference
[-] Read Less
- 01/13/2023
-
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Why Plaintiff's counsel should not be sanctioned in the amount of $500 for failure to appear at the Case Management Conference scheduled for 03/08/2023 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 76
[-] Read Less
- 01/13/2023
-
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal of unserved defendants scheduled for 03/08/2023 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 76
[-] Read Less
- 01/13/2023
-
DocketCase Management Conference scheduled for 03/22/2023 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 76
[-] Read Less
- 01/13/2023
-
DocketMinute Order (Case Management Conference)
[-] Read Less
- 01/13/2023
-
DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Case Management Conference) of 01/13/2023; Filed by: Clerk
[-] Read Less
- 01/13/2023
-
DocketOn the Court's own motion, Case Management Conference scheduled for 01/13/2023 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 76 Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion was rescheduled to 03/22/2023 08:30 AM
[-] Read Less
- 01/12/2023
-
DocketUpdated -- Event scheduled for 03/22/2023 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 76 Type changed from Hearing on Motion for Order (name extension) to Hearing on Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement (CCP 877.6)
[-] Read Less
- 01/11/2022
-
DocketUpdated -- Brown Neri Smith & Khan LLP (Plaintiff): Organization Name changed from BROWN NERI SMITH & KHAN LLP, a limited liability partnership, and law firm to Brown Neri Smith & Khan LLP
[-] Read Less
- 01/11/2022
-
DocketUpdated -- Complaint: As To Parties changed from Shirlee Huffman (Defendant), Miles Ulrich (Defendant), Louis Rudas (Defendant), Daniel Gonzalez (Defendant), Craig Stevens (Defendant), Joe Pastore (Defendant), Dean Li as trustee of the Dean Li Revocable Trust (Defendant), Janet Lucchesi (Defendant), Brenda Steininger (Defendant), Keith Camp (Defendant), John Gates (Defendant), Yuanhua Ju (Defendant), Anthony Lucchesi (Defendant), Thanh Tran (Defendant), Xiaobin Wang (Defendant), Pat McGill (Defendant), Lingbing Zhao (Defendant), Lucy Chaparro (Defendant), Seymon Ginzburg (Defendant), Al McCoskey (Defendant), Golda Gorden (Defendant), Pamela Heinz (Defendant), Dani Rothenberg (Defendant), Roger Briddle (Defendant), Khanh Quoc Tran (Defendant), Debra Drewes (Defendant), Virginia Ciurluini (Defendant), Yvonne Truong (Defendant), Debra Rein (Defendant), Louis and Dragica Rudas, as Co-Trustees of the Rudas Family Trust (Defendant), Philip Marx (Defendant), Tung Kieu (Defendant), Judy Hue Tr
[-] Read Less
- 01/11/2022
-
DocketUpdated -- Summons on Complaint: As To Parties changed from Jonathan Drewes (Defendant), Lingbing Zhao (Defendant), Sham M. Vengurlekar (Defendant), Shirlee Huffman (Defendant), Camille Rich (Defendant), Doreen McGill (Defendant), Miauw K. Darmawan (Defendant), Manoj Thaker (Defendant), Tung Kieu (Defendant), Sima Hovanessian (Defendant), Michael Metts (Defendant), Joe Pastore (Defendant), Danh C. Truong & Yvonne Truong Joint Trust (Defendant), Suzan Estrada (Defendant), Louis and Dragica Rudas, as Co-Trustees of the Rudas Family Trust (Defendant), Miles Ulrich (Defendant), John Gates (Defendant), Philip Marx (Defendant), Danh C. Truong (Defendant), Lucy Chaparro (Defendant), John Steininger (Defendant), Kurt Wedewer (Defendant), Richard Watson (Defendant), Virginia Ciurluini (Defendant), Erin Maureen Schmidt (Defendant), Lorene Solis (Defendant), Justin Bunnell (Defendant), Xiaobin Wang (Defendant), Yvonne Truong (Defendant), Tom Hugh-Jones (Defendant), Judy Hue Tran (Defendant), Brad
[-] Read Less
- 01/10/2022
-
DocketComplaint; Filed by: BROWN NERI SMITH & KHAN LLP, a limited liability partnership, and law firm (Plaintiff); As to: James A. McDonald (Defendant); Hercules Investments, LLC, a California limited liability company (Defendant); Anthony Lucchesi (Defendant) et al.
[-] Read Less
- 01/10/2022
-
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: BROWN NERI SMITH & KHAN LLP, a limited liability partnership, and law firm (Plaintiff); As to: James A. McDonald (Defendant); Hercules Investments, LLC, a California limited liability company (Defendant); Anthony Lucchesi (Defendant) et al.
[-] Read Less
- 01/10/2022
-
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: BROWN NERI SMITH & KHAN LLP, a limited liability partnership, and law firm (Plaintiff); As to: James A. McDonald (Defendant); Hercules Investments, LLC, a California limited liability company (Defendant); Anthony Lucchesi (Defendant) et al.
[-] Read Less
- 01/10/2022
-
DocketAlternate Dispute Resolution Packet; Filed by: Clerk
[-] Read Less
- 01/10/2022
-
DocketFirst Amended General Order re: Mandatory Electronic Filing; Filed by: Clerk
[-] Read Less
- 01/10/2022
-
DocketVoluntary Efficient Litigation Stipulation Packet; Filed by: Clerk
[-] Read Less
- 01/10/2022
-
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk
[-] Read Less
Tentative Rulings
Case Number: *******1008 Hearing Date: May 27, 2022 Dept: 76
The hearing on Plaintiff Brown Neri Smith & Khan LLP’s motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint In Interpleader is CONTINUED to June 27, 2022 at 8:30 AM.
Because some Defendants have already answered the Complaint In Interpleader, Plaintiff’s right to amend once as of right has been cut off. As to this motion, there is a defect in notice, as most Defendants are self-represented parties who were served by e-mail. Emergency Rule 12 does not require pro per litigants to accept electronic service unless they consent in writing. (California Rules of Court, Emergency Rule 12(c).)
While Plaintiff indicates that many of the recipients on the Proof of Service filed on May 20, 2022 accepted service by email, this notice must be treated as the initial notice of motion. In that regard, only 5 court days’ notice was given. The Proof of Service says that notice of the Court’s April 25, 2022 minute order was given on “March 7, 2022,” which is impossible. The Proof of Service is dated May 20, 2022, which the Court assumes is the date notice was actually sent.
Plaintiff is to serve notice of the continuance by regular mail, unless Plaintiff produces a written consent by pro per Defendants to accept service by e-mail. In other words, serve all recipients of the notice by mail, unless a written consent of service by e-mail is also attached to the proof of service. The Court recommends this be done tomorrow, not 5 court days before the next hearing date, otherwise, the same result will occur.
Proper service is essential in this case, because an order granting leave to file the Amended Complaint In Interpleader will deem service of the amended complaint to have been made upon all parties as of the date of the order, thereby triggering the time to respond. In this regard, Plaintiff must also ensure that service of the summons and complaint were accomplished according to code upon all named Defendants in Interpleader.
Case Number: *******1008 Hearing Date: February 17, 2022 Dept: 76
Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion. As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(2), any party seeking oral argument should notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue. Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org. If notice of intention to appear is not given and the parties do not appear, the Court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.
Plaintiff law firm filed this complaint in interpleader relating to funds from an insurance policy settlement which Plaintiff’s client obtained to pay for claims by various investors who had lost over $50 million based upon the client’s investment advice.
Plaintiff Brown Neri Smith & Khan LLP moves for leave to deposit the funds and compel the Defendants to litigate their claims. BNSK further requests an order discharging BNSK from liability and dismiss BNSK as a party from this proceeding. Finally, BNSK requests its costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civ. Pro section 386.6.
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff Brown Neri Smith & Khan LLP’s motion for leave to deposit interpleader funds, discharge of liability, and for attorneys’ fees is DENIED without prejudice.
ANALYSIS
Motion For Leave To Deposit Interpleader Funds and Discharge of Liability
Request For Judicial Notice
Defendant requests that the court take judicial notice of the following: (1) Signed judgment in Semyon Ginzburg v. Hercules Investments, LLC, et al., Case No. 21STCV19709; (2) Reply in support of Plaintiff’ motion for an order assigning right to payment due to satisfy judgment. Requests Nos. 1 and 2 are GRANTED per Evid. Code 452(d)(court records).
Discussion
Plaintiff Brown Neri Smith & Khan LLP moves for leave to deposit the funds and compel the Defendants to litigate their claims. BNSK further requests an order discharging BNSK from liability and dismiss BNSK as a party from this proceeding. Finally, BNSK requests its costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civ. Pro section 386.6.
As Defendant Semyon Ginzburg argues, this motion is premature. There is no indication that the named Defendants have all been served with the summons and complaint. Naming parties as defendants in an interpleader action does not accomplish a useful purpose if they are never served with the complaint.
Further, Plaintiff did not provide a proof of service regarding notice of this motion upon all named Defendants. Notably, service upon pro-per litigants by electronic service is not authorized by Emergency Rule 12.
Accordingly, the motion for leave to deposit interpleader funds, discharge of liability, and for attorneys’ fees is DENIED without prejudice.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases