This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/30/2019 at 03:44:46 (UTC).

CITY BREEZE LLC ET AL VS JANNEY & JANNEY ATTORNEY SERVICE IN

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9664

  • Filing Date:

    07/21/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

GREGORY KEOSIAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

CITY BREEZE LLC

NEUTRACEUTICAL SERVICES OF AMERICA

NEUTRACEUTICAL SERVICES OF AMERICA AKA BENTLEY INDUSTRIES INC.

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 20

JANNEY & JANNEY ATTORNEY SERVICE INC

JACK W. BIGGERSTAFF

JANNEY & JANNEY ATTORNEY SERVICE INC.

BIGGERSTAFF JACK W.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

JAMES BAINBRIDGE

JOHN M. PIERCE

PIERCE JOHN M.

BAINBRIDGE JAMES

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

BLACK PHILIP E. ESQ.

BLACK PHILIP E.

 

Court Documents

Unknown

12/29/2017: Unknown

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

12/29/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

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

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

Stipulation and Order

2/27/2019: Stipulation and Order

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

3/6/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Minute Order

3/13/2019: Minute Order

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

1/17/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

Minute Order

1/17/2018: Minute Order

CIVIL DEPOSIT

1/2/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

Unknown

1/2/2018: Unknown

PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL?CIVIL

1/2/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL?CIVIL

DECLARATION OF PHILIP E. BLACK PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 430.41(A)(2) RELATIVE TO FAILURE TO MEET AND CONFER

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

NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

11/20/2017: NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

11/16/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

Unknown

10/27/2017: Unknown

Proof of Service

10/4/2017: Proof of Service

SUMMONS

7/21/2017: SUMMONS

Unknown

7/21/2017: Unknown

26 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/21/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 61; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 61; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • Association of Attorney; Filed by Janney & Janney Attorney Service, Inc. (Defendant); Jack W. Biggerstaff (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 61; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 61; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 61; Post-Mediation Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Post-Mediation Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Janney & Janney Attorney Service, Inc. (Defendant); Jack W. Biggerstaff (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2019
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by James Bainbridge (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2019
  • 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
59 More Docket Entries
  • 10/02/2017
  • First Amended Complaint; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2017
  • FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR (1) NEGLIGENCE, ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR (1) NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by City Breeze, LLC (Plaintiff); Neutraceutical Services of America (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2017
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC669664    Hearing Date: September 16, 2020    Dept: 36

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 36

CITY BREEZE, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; NEUTRACEUTICAL SERVICES OF AMERICA, an AKA for Bentley Industries, Inc., a California Corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

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,

Defendants.

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.

Dated: ____________________________

Gregory Alarcon

Superior Court Judge