This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/22/2021 at 00:25:57 (UTC).

CAESAR JAMES BIJOU VS BSL SAWTELLE, LLC, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 05/12/2021 CAESAR JAMES BIJOU filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against BSL SAWTELLE, LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******7866

  • Filing Date:

    05/12/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Cross Defendants and Plaintiffs

BIJOU CAESAR JAMES

19 WEST INC.

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

BSL DUANE LLC

DRESEVIC STEFAN

SURETEC INSURANCE COMPANY

DRESEVIC BODIN

BSL SAWTELLE LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Cross Defendant, Plaintiff and Defendant Attorneys

DREYFUSS LAWRENCE JAY

CHEN ALEXANDER JAMES

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

CHEN ALEXANDER JAMES

 

Court Documents

Unknown - REQUEST FOR REFUND / ORDER (EFILING)

10/25/2021: Unknown - REQUEST FOR REFUND / ORDER (EFILING)

Answer

10/20/2021: Answer

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - OPPOSITION IN OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

10/4/2021: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - OPPOSITION IN OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT STEFAN DRESEVIC'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

10/5/2021: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT STEFAN DRESEVIC'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Proof of Personal Service

10/12/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOT...)

10/13/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOT...)

Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING AND OF TRIAL SETTING

10/13/2021: Notice of Ruling - NOTICE OF RULING AND OF TRIAL SETTING

Summons - SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

9/9/2021: Summons - SUMMONS CROSS-COMPLAINT

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

9/9/2021: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

9/7/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE) OF 09/07/2021

9/7/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE) OF 09/07/2021

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: RESCHEDULING OF HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR 10/15/...) OF 09/07/2021

9/7/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: RESCHEDULING OF HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR 10/15/...) OF 09/07/2021

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: RESCHEDULING OF HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR 10/15/...)

9/7/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: RESCHEDULING OF HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR 10/15/...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS)

8/31/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS)

Notice - NOTICE OF RULING RE MOT TO QUASH

9/1/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF RULING RE MOT TO QUASH

Notice - NOTICE SPECIALLY APPEARING DEF BODIN DRESEVIC'S NOT OF NON OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

8/25/2021: Notice - NOTICE SPECIALLY APPEARING DEF BODIN DRESEVIC'S NOT OF NON OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

8/25/2021: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Case Management Statement

8/25/2021: Case Management Statement

39 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/06/2023
  • Hearing02/06/2023 at 10:00 AM in Department 48 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2023
  • Hearing01/23/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 48 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2022
  • Hearing08/03/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 48 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2021
  • DocketRequest for Refund / Order (eFiling); Filed by BSL Sawtelle, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2021
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Stefan Dresevic (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
45 More Docket Entries
  • 06/08/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Caesar James Bijou (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Caesar James Bijou (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/08/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Caesar James Bijou (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Caesar James Bijou (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Caesar James Bijou (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Caesar James Bijou (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Caesar James Bijou (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Caesar James Bijou (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 21STCV17866 Hearing Date: October 13, 2021 Dept: 48

\r\n\r\n

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER\r\nTO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

On May 12, 2021, Plaintiff Caesar\r\nJames Bijou filed this action against Defendants BSL Sawtelle LLC, BSL Duane LLC,\r\nStefan Dresevic (“Defendant”), Bodin Dresevic, and Suretec Insurance Company.

\r\n\r\n

On\r\nJuly 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”). On July 20, 2021 Defendant filed a demurrer to\r\nthe FAC. The Court rejected the filing of\r\nthe FAC, noting that a court order was required. On August 25, 2021, the parties stipulated to\r\nPlaintiff filing his FAC and also stipulated that Defendant’s demurrer to the FAC\r\nwould remain on calendar. On August 26, 2021,\r\nPlaintiff refiled his FAC.

\r\n\r\n

A\r\ndemurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740,\r\n747.) When considering demurrers, courts\r\nread the allegations liberally and in context, accepting the alleged facts as true. (Nolte v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2015)\r\n236 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1406.) A special demurrer\r\nfor uncertainty under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f) is\r\ndisfavored and will only be sustained where the pleading is so bad that defendant\r\nor plaintiff cannot reasonably respond—i.e., cannot reasonably determine what issues\r\nmust be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or\r\nher. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc.\r\n(1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Even\r\nif the pleading is somewhat vague, “ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery\r\nprocedures.” (Ibid.)

\r\n\r\n

Defendant\r\nargues the alter ego allegations lack supporting facts and merely recite some requirements\r\nof alter ego. “In California, two conditions\r\nmust be met before the alter ego doctrine will be invoked. First, there must be such a unity of interest\r\nand ownership between the corporation and its equitable owner that the separate\r\npersonalities of the corporation and the shareholder do not in reality exist. Second, there must be an inequitable result if\r\nthe acts in question are treated as those of the corporation alone.” (Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court\r\n(2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 523, 538.) The FAC\r\nalleges Stefan Dresevic and Bodin Dresevic are the alter egos of BSL Sawtelle, LLC\r\nand BSL Duane, LLC. (FAC ¶ 5.) The FAC further alleges the entities are “undercapitalized\r\nsham entities,” there is such unity of interest and ownership between the entities\r\nand the individuals that they do not have separate personalities, and there will\r\nbe an inequitable result if the acts and obligations are treated as those of the\r\nentities alone. (Ibid.) This is sufficient. Plaintiff need not allege specific facts to support\r\nan alter ego theory. (Rutherford Holdings,\r\nLLC v. Plaza Del Rey (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 221, 236.)

\r\n\r\n

The\r\ndemurrer is OVERRULED.

\r\n\r\n

Moving\r\nparty to give notice.

\r\n\r\n

Parties\r\nwho intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org\r\nindicating intention to submit. Parties intending\r\nto appear are STRONGLY encouraged to appear remotely.

\r\n\r\n'b'

Case Number: 21STCV17866 Hearing Date: August 31, 2021 Dept: 48

\r\n\r\n

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE\r\nOF SUMMONS

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

On May 12, 2021, Plaintiff Caesar\r\nJames Bijou filed this action against Defendants BSL Sawtelle LLC, BSL Duane LLC,\r\nStefan Dresevic, Bodin Dresevic (“Defendant”), and Suretec Insurance Company (“Suretec”). Plaintiff filed a proof of services stating\r\nDefendant was served On June 2, 2021 at 5:47 p.m., at 4236 Sawtelle Blvd., Los Angeles,\r\nCA 90066-6016 though substituted service.

\r\n\r\n

On\r\nJuly 13, 2021, Defendant moved to quash service of summons and complaint due to\r\ndefective service. A defendant, on or before\r\nthe last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court\r\nmay for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion and motion to quash\r\nservice of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or\r\nher. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) Substituted service requires leaving a copy of\r\nthe summons and complaint either at the individual’s dwelling house or usual place\r\nof abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a post office\r\nbox. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).) Plaintiff must also mail a copy of the summons\r\nand complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at\r\nthe place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left. (Ibid.) Here, the summons and complaint were left with\r\n“John Doe,” identified as a co-occupant, at 4236 Sawtelle Boulevard, and the documents\r\nwere mailed to Defendant at the same address.

\r\n\r\n

Defendant\r\nargues he does not live at the 4236 Sawtelle Boulevard address where substituted\r\nservice was made, and thus service did not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section\r\n415.20, subdivision (b). Defendant declares\r\nthat he has never lived at this address, and his current and previous addresses\r\nare in Bellevue, Washington. (Dresevic Decl.\r\n¶¶ 4-5.) He first learned of this action\r\nwhen he was contacted by Suretec about Plaintiff filing a claim against the bond. (Id. at ¶ 7.)

\r\n\r\n

“When\r\na defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper\r\nservice of process ‘the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of jurisdiction\r\nby proving, inter alia, the facts requisite to an effective service.’” (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th\r\n403, 413, fn. omitted.) Plaintiff has not\r\nopposed this motion.

\r\n\r\n

Accordingly,\r\nthe unopposed motion to quash service of the summons and complaint is GRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

Moving\r\nparty to give notice.

\r\n\r\n

Parties\r\nwho intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org\r\nindicating intention to submit. Parties intending\r\nto appear are STRONGLY encouraged to appear remotely.

\r\n\r\n'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where 19 WEST INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases where SURETEC INSURANCE COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer CHEN ALEXANDER JAMES