This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/27/2019 at 01:36:05 (UTC).

BROWN NERI SMITH & KHAN LLP VS THOMAS HOLLIDAY ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/08/2017 BROWN NERI SMITH KHAN LLP filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against THOMAS HOLLIDAY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MICHAEL P. LINFIELD. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6144

  • Filing Date:

    12/08/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MICHAEL P. LINFIELD

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

BROWN NERI SMITH & KHAN LLP

Defendants and Respondents

HOLLIDAY THOMAS

HOLLIDAY MARCI

DOES 1 TO 50

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BROWN ETHAN J

BROWN ETHAN J.

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

HANDZLIK JAN L.

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

1/22/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Minute Order

2/13/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION

3/22/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION

DEFENDANTS THOMAS AND MARCI HOLLLDAY'S STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT, ETC

3/22/2018: DEFENDANTS THOMAS AND MARCI HOLLLDAY'S STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT, ETC

PLAINTIFF BROWN NERI SMITH & KHAN LLP'S STATUS REPORT

3/22/2018: PLAINTIFF BROWN NERI SMITH & KHAN LLP'S STATUS REPORT

Minute Order

3/23/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

6/27/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Related Case

10/19/2018: Notice of Related Case

Other -

10/24/2018: Other -

Minute Order

10/31/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

12/3/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

12/5/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

12/5/2018: Unknown

Unknown

12/5/2018: Unknown

Notice of Ruling

12/10/2018: Notice of Ruling

Case Management Statement

2/6/2019: Case Management Statement

Proof of Service by Mail

2/7/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Case Management Statement

2/7/2019: Case Management Statement

32 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/28/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 34; Case Management Conference - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/27/2019
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Brown Neri Smith & Khan LLP (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/26/2019
  • DocketNotice of Deposit - Jury; Filed by Thomas Holliday (Defendant); Marci Holliday (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/26/2019
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Thomas Holliday (Defendant); Marci Holliday (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/15/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 34; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/15/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Jan L. Handzlik (Attorney)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by Thomas Holliday (Defendant); Marci Holliday (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/07/2019
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Thomas Holliday (Defendant); Marci Holliday (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
60 More Docket Entries
  • 12/20/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/20/2017
  • DocketNotice of Stay of Proceedings (Bankruptcy); Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/20/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/19/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/19/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/19/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Brown Neri Smith & Khan LLP (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/19/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Brown Neri Smith & Khan LLP (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Brown Neri Smith & Khan LLP (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL 2. BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT 3. QUANTUM MERUIT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****6144    Hearing Date: January 08, 2020    Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motion for Leave from Discovery Stay to Take Limited Discovery to Identify the Personal Representative of Thomas Holliday’s Estate

Moving Party: Plaintiff Brown, Neri, Smith & Khan

Resp. Party: Defendant Marci Holliday and Joinder by Defendant Thomas Holliday

The motion for leave from discovery stay to take limited discovery to identify the personal representative of Thomas Holliday’s estate is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND:

On September 28, 2018, Beulah Deitch commenced an action in the related case BC723477 against Ethan Brown, Esq., Sara Colon, Esq., and Brown, Neri, Smith & Khan for: (1) fraud and rescission; (2) financial elder abuse; (3) declaratory relief; (4) breach of contract; and (5) breach of fiduciary duty. This case arises out of Defendants' representation of Plaintiff in a financial elder abuse action. Plaintiff takes issue with Defendants' staffing and billing relating to the underlying proceeding, asserting that (1) Defendants' misrepresented the manner in which they would bill, (2) Mr. Brown was not involved as represented, and (3) Defendants' billing was improper and excessive.

On February 28, 2019, the Court granted Ethan Brown, Esq., Sara Colon, Esq., and Brown, Neri, Smith & Khan’s motion to compel arbitration against Beulah Deitch in the case BC723477.

On February 28, 2019, the Court stayed the case in its entirety.

On June 18, 2019, the Court found the following cases, ****6144, BC723477, and 19STCP02346 are related and ****6144 is the lead case.

On November 25, 2019, Brown Neri Smith & Khan LLP field the instant motion for leave from discovery stay to take limited discovery to identify the personal representative of Thomas Holliday’s estate.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff “move[s] the Court for an order lifting the discovery stay in this action, for the limited purpose to permit [Plaintiff] to take discovery to identify the personal representative of Thomas Holliday’s (‘Mr. Holliday’) estate or the trustee of Mr. Holliday’s trust.” (Motion, p. 1:4-7.) Plaintiff argues that “good cause exists for this specific discovery because (1) Mr. Holliday passed away on August 22, 2019; (2) [Plaintiff] has claims against Mr. Holliday’s estate; (3) to preserve its claims and interest against Mr. Holliday’s estate and preserve assets before they might be distributed, [Plaintiff] must file a creditor’s claim against Mr. Holliday’s estate in the probate court; (4) [Plaintiff] must serve it’s creditor’s claim on the personal representative of Mr. Holliday’s estate or the trustee of Mr. Holliday’s trust; and (5) [Plaintiff] has informally requested the identity and contact information of the personal representative of Mr. Holliday’s estate from his counsel and counsel for Mrs. Deitch, but neither have provided [Plaintiff] with requested information; and (6) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 366.2(a), [Plaintiff] must file it’s creditor’s claim within one-year of Mr. Holliday’s death.” (Id. at p. 1:8-17.) Plaintiff maintains that this “evidence may not be obtained through other sources or through informal means” because “the relevant evidence is principally in the control of the Defendants, as well as other third parties who will not provide it except through formal discovery.” (Id. at p. 1:18-20.)

Defendant Marci Holliday argues that Plaintiff has not presented “good cause to lift the discovery stay in this case, which has nothing to do with probate.” (Opp., p. 1:6-7.) Defendant argues that “Plaintiff has other avenues to get discovery- in arbitration and in probate,” thus there is no basis to lift the discovery stay. (Id. at p. 3:8-10.)

In reply, Plaintiff argues that “the one-year limitation [of Code of Civil Procedure section 366.2 to file a creditor’s claim] creates the exigent circumstances warranting the Court to lift the discovery stay, particularly because there is not another forum for Plaintiff to seek the requested relief.” (Reply, p. 1:8-12.) Plaintiff also reiterates that it cannot “take discovery related to Mr. Holliday’s personal representative in the related arbitration with Beulah Deitch, or . . . in probate” because (1) “without a probate case being identified provides no avenue for Plaintiff to obtain the information requested by way of the motion for leave from stay[;]” and (2) “the discovery phase of the arbitration could also push beyond Plaintiff’s one-year limit to file and serve its creditor’s claim on Mr. Holliday’s estate.” (Id. at p. 1:15-23, 2:26-27.)

Plaintiff has unsuccessfully attempted to determine Mr. Holliday’s personal representative’s identity through informal manners and the information is necessary to preserve Plaintiff’s rights as a creditor to Mr. Holliday’s estate. The Court finds that there is good cause to lift the discovery stay in this case, for the limited purpose of conducting discovery to identify the personal representative of Mr. Holliday’s estate or the trustee of Mr. Holliday’s trust.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave from discovery stay.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where BROWN NERI SMITH & KHAN LLP is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BROWN ETHAN