On 07/21/2017 CITY BREEZE LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against JANNEY JANNEY ATTORNEY SERVICE IN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GREGORY KEOSIAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
CITY BREEZE LLC
NEUTRACEUTICAL SERVICES OF AMERICA
NEUTRACEUTICAL SERVICES OF AMERICA AKA BENTLEY INDUSTRIES INC.
DOES 1 TO 20
JANNEY & JANNEY ATTORNEY SERVICE INC
JACK W. BIGGERSTAFF
JANNEY & JANNEY ATTORNEY SERVICE INC.
BIGGERSTAFF JACK W.
JOHN M. PIERCE
PIERCE JOHN M.
BLACK PHILIP E. ESQ.
BLACK PHILIP E.
12/29/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
6/21/2018: NOTICE OF ERRATA AND ERRATA ATTACHMENT THAT REPLACES AND CORRECTS INADVERTENT OVERSIGHT/SCRIVENER'S ERRORS OF TWO NUMBERS AND ONE WORD ON THE COVER PAGE AND THREE NUMBERS AND THREE WORDS ON PAGE 81 OF
2/27/2019: Stipulation and Order
3/6/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information
3/13/2019: Minute Order
1/17/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
1/17/2018: Minute Order
1/2/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT
1/2/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL?CIVIL
11/30/2017: DECLARATION OF PHILIP E. BLACK PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 430.41(A)(2) RELATIVE TO FAILURE TO MEET AND CONFER
11/20/2017: NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
11/16/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY
10/4/2017: Proof of Service
at 09:00 AM in Department 61; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Court's MotionRead MoreRead Less
at 09:00 AM in Department 61; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's MotionRead MoreRead Less
Association of Attorney; Filed by Janney & Janney Attorney Service, Inc. (Defendant); Jack W. Biggerstaff (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 09:00 AM in Department 61; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by PartyRead MoreRead Less
at 09:00 AM in Department 61; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Not Held - Rescheduled by PartyRead MoreRead Less
at 09:00 AM in Department 61; Post-Mediation Status Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Post-Mediation Status Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Ruling; Filed by Janney & Janney Attorney Service, Inc. (Defendant); Jack W. Biggerstaff (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by James Bainbridge (Attorney)Read MoreRead Less
Stipulation and Order (by All Parties to Continue Trial Date and to Continue All Discovery and All Law and Motion Cut-Off Dates); Filed by City Breeze, LLC (Plaintiff); Neutraceutical Services of America (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
First Amended Complaint; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR (1) NEGLIGENCE, ETCRead MoreRead Less
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARINGRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR (1) NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION; ETCRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by City Breeze, LLC (Plaintiff); Neutraceutical Services of America (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
CIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC669664 Hearing Date: September 16, 2020 Dept: 36
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
CITY BREEZE, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; NEUTRACEUTICAL SERVICES OF AMERICA, an AKA for Bentley Industries, Inc., a California Corporation,
JANNEY & JANNEY ATTORNEY SERVICE, INC., a California corporation as to Causes of Action 1 through 6; JACK W. BIGGERSTAFF, an individual, as to Causes of Action 1 through 4 and 7; and Does 1-20, inclusive,
Case No.: BC669664
Hearing Date: 9/14/2020
[TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement, Alternatively, Adjudication
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is continued to 10/30/20.
Defendants may file an evidentiary declaration described below on or before 10/01/20.
Plaintiffs may file a response to a filed declaration on or before 10/14/20.
Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections
1. Objections to Janney Declaration
Plaintiffs object to each substantive paragraph in the declaration of Steven Janney on grounds that Mr. Janney has presented no evidence of his personal knowledge of the facts alleged in each paragraph, as well as on grounds of hearsay and lack of foundation to the extent that the declarant’s knowledge is based on a business records exception to the hearsay rule.
On summary judgment or adjudication, “[s]upporting and opposing affidavits or declarations shall be made by a person on personal knowledge, shall set forth admissible evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated in the affidavits or declarations.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(d).)
A witness’s testimony “concerning a particular matter is inadmissible unless he has personal knowledge of the matter. Against the objection of a party, such personal knowledge must be shown before the witness may testify concerning the matter.” (Evid. Code, § 702(a).) Personal knowledge “may be shown by any otherwise admissible evidence, including his own testimony.” (Id. at (b).)
Mr. Janney’s declaration attests only that Mr. Janney has personal knowledge of the matters set forth in the declaration without further information. (Janney Decl. ¶ 2.)
“It is the general rule that statements in affidavits are presumed to be made on personal knowledge unless stated to be on information and belief and unless it appears affirmatively or by fair inference that they could not have been, and were not, on such knowledge . . . .” (Weathers v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
However, Plaintiffs have objected to the declaration on grounds of lack of personal knowledge, and thus the preliminary fact of Mr. Janney’s personal knowledge of the statements in his declaration must be shown before the declaration is considered. (Evid. Code, § 702(a).) Plaintiffs have brought affirmative evidence in support that neither Mr. Fingarette nor Mr. Dapeer have had communication with Mr. Janney by phone, email, text, fax, or otherwise. (See Fingarette Decl. ¶ 58; Dapeer Decl. ¶ 4.) Mr. Fingarette signed the Verification of Complaint in City Breeze LLC, et al. v. Reconstrust Company, et al. (2010) Case No. BC442323, filed July 26, 2010, as CEO of City Breeze, LLC and Neutraceutical Services of America, a dba of Bentley Industries, Inc., the plaintiffs in that action. (Fing. Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, Plaintiffs’ CDE, Exh. G.) Mr. Dapeer was attorney of record for the plaintiffs in the same case. (Dapeer Decl. ¶ 1.)
Defendants have not filed a response to this objection.
Based on the foregoing, hearing on the instant motion for summary judgment is continued. Defendants are to file a declaration attesting to the admissibility of each statement in Mr. Janney’s declaration, in particular on the preliminary fact of Mr. Janney’s personal knowledge, and sufficiency thereof to take the declaration out from the allegations of hearsay. Plaintiffs may file a response to the declaration.
2. Objection to Plaintiffs’ AUMF and Separate Statement
Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ responses to Defendants’ Separate Statement, as well as Plaintiffs’ Additional Undisputed Material Facts, on grounds that the additional facts are unduly burdensome. Defendants request the court grant summary judgment on this ground. The court has considered each document and does not find granting summary judgment on this ground warranted. (See Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc.
Superior Court Judge
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases