This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/12/2020 at 23:10:39 (UTC).

CORRINE KIN ET AL VS SHIRA CLEMENT ET AL

Case Summary

On 09/15/2017 CORRINE KIN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against SHIRA CLEMENT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE and LAURA A. SEIGLE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6169

  • Filing Date:

    09/15/2017

  • 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 Judges

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

LAURA A. SEIGLE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

KIN AARON

KIN CORRINE

FORMOSA PARTNERS LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

SIERRA BONITA PARTNERS LLC A WYOMING LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

GREEN VISTA PARTNERS LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

SIERRA BONITA PARTNERS LLC

FORMOSA PARTNERS LLC

GREEN VISTA PARTNERS LLC

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

449 ALTA VISTA BLVD LLC

CLEMENT ISAAC

CLEMENT SHIRA

CLEMENT MICHAEL

EJ CAPITAL GROUP LLC

M GROUP INTERNATIONAL INC.

CLEMENT MORRIS

CLEMENT GABY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF OFER M. GROSSMAN

GROSSMAN OFER M.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

MARCUS STEPHEN

MARCUS STEPHEN H.

 

Court Documents

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: RESCHEDULING HEARINGS CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR...) OF 06/17/2020

6/17/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: RESCHEDULING HEARINGS CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR...) OF 06/17/2020

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

6/2/2020: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Status Report

2/10/2020: Status Report

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

2/13/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

10/17/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: ARBITRATION)

9/20/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE RE: ARBITRATION)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

7/30/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

7/30/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE MOTION TO RECONSIDER

7/31/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING OF MOTION...)

7/31/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING OF MOTION...)

Motion for Reconsideration

7/22/2019: Motion for Reconsideration

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER: PLAINTIFFS' PETITION TO VACATE AR...)

7/12/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER: PLAINTIFFS' PETITION TO VACATE AR...)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF MICHAEL CLEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

6/26/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF MICHAEL CLEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF ELCHONEN TAUBER IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

6/26/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF ELCHONEN TAUBER IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

Declaration - DECLARATION SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF ELCHONEN TAUBER IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD AND FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT THERETO

6/6/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF ELCHONEN TAUBER IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD AND FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT THERETO

Notice - NOTICE OF ERRATA RE PROOF OF SERVICE

4/25/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF ERRATA RE PROOF OF SERVICE

Declaration - DECLARATION OF AARON KIN

4/8/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF AARON KIN

JOINT STATUS REPORT RE ARBITRATION HEARINGS AND STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE TO ALLOW FOR COMPLETION OF SAME; ETC

9/10/2018: JOINT STATUS REPORT RE ARBITRATION HEARINGS AND STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE TO ALLOW FOR COMPLETION OF SAME; ETC

101 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/06/2021
  • Hearing01/06/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 48 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2020
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Aaron Kin (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/03/2020
  • DocketNotice (Of Ruling on Motion To Compel Arbitration and to Disqualify Arbitrator); Filed by Aaron Kin (Plaintiff); Corrine Kin (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Status Conference (ReSelection of Arbitrators) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (Disqualification of Rabbi Shlomo Klein as Artibrator) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion - Other Disqualification of Rabbi Shlomo Kl...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Status Conference (ReSelection of Arbitrators) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (Disqualification of Rabbi Shlomo Klein as Artibrator) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Laura A. Seigle, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
152 More Docket Entries
  • 09/29/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Aaron Kin (Plaintiff); Corrine Kin (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1) BREACH OF CONTRACT ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC676169    Hearing Date: July 28, 2020    Dept: 48

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, STRIKE ANSWER, AND STRIKE CROSS-COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Corrine Kin and Aaron Kin (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Shira Clement, Morris Clement, Michael Clement, 449 Alta Vista Blvd, LLC, EJ Capital Group, LLC, M Group International, Inc., Isaac Clement, and Gaby Clement (collectively, “Defendants”) on September 15, 2017. In April 2018, the parties stipulated to binding arbitration before a panel of rabbis.

Following arbitration, Defendants moved to confirm the award, and Plaintiffs moved to vacate the award. On July 12, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ petition to vacate the arbitration award and ordered the parties to select a new arbitration panel to rehear the arbitration. On September 19, 2019, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint. Defendants Michael Clement, Morris Clement, and Shira Clement (collectively, “Cross-Complainants”) also filed a cross-complaint against Aaron Kin, Corrine Kin, Green Vista Partners, LLC, Formosa Partners, LLC, and Sierra Bonita Partners, LLC.

On October 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a petition to compel arbitration, stay proceedings, and strike the answer and cross-complaint.

Compel Arbitration

When seeking to compel arbitration, the moving party must allege the existence of an agreement to arbitrate. (Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 219.) The Court must grant a motion to compel arbitration unless the opposing party has waived the right to compel arbitration or if there are grounds to revoke the arbitration agreement. (Ibid.; Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)

The parties agreed to binding arbitration for “all financial disputes between the undersigned parties regarding the following properties: 3818 Green Vista Drive, Encino, California; 449 N. Alta Vista Blvd., Los Angeles, California; 534 N. Alta Vista Boulevard, Los Angeles, California; 513 N. Sierra Bonita Boulevard, Los Angeles, California.” (Motion, Ex. 2, exhibit 1 [“Arbitration Agreement”].)

The cross-complaint alleges eight causes of action: (1) breach of contract involving 3818 Green Vista Drive, Encino, California; (2) fraud involving 3818 Green Vista Drive, Encino, California; (3) return of payments involving 419 N. Formosa Street, Los Angeles, California; (4) breach of contract involving 419 N. Formosa Street, Los Angeles, California; (5) accounting involving 419 N. Formosa Street, Los Angeles, California; (6) return of payments involving 513 N. Sierra Bonita Boulevard, Los Angeles, California; (7) negligence involving 513 N. Sierra Bonita Boulevard, Los Angeles, California; and (8) accounting involving 513 N. Sierra Bonita Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. Therefore, the Arbitration Agreement covers the cross-complaint’s first, second, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action.

Defendants state that the petition to compel arbitration is now moot because they have agreed to proceed to arbitration and do not oppose a stay of proceedings. (Opposition at pp. 2-3.)

Accordingly, the Court grants the petition to compel arbitration as to the cross-complaint’s first, second, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action. The claims as to 419 N. Formosa Street set out in the third, fourth and fifth causes of action are stayed pending the arbitration.

Strike Answer and Cross-Complaint

Plaintiffs ask the Court to strike Defendants’ answer and Cross-Complainants’ cross-complaint because Defendants filed them in violation of the stay of proceedings. (Motion at p. 2, 8.) The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading, or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subds.(a)-(b).)

The cross-complaint asserts claims regarding 419 N. Formosa Street, a property not specified in the arbitration agreement. Litigation regarding that property has never been stayed. In the interest of judicial economy, the Court denies the request to strike the cross-complaint.

As for the answer, the parties had agreed to arbitrate all of the disputes asserted in the complaint. Therefore, filing the answer served no purpose and was contrary to the parties’ agreement and Court’s order compelling arbitration and staying the case as to the properties listed in the arbitration agreement and complaint. Accordingly, the request to strike the answer is granted.

Conclusion

The petition to compel arbitration is GRANTED as to the cross-complaint’s first, second, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action. This action, including the cross-complaint’s third, fourth, and fifth causes of action, is STAYED pending the completion of arbitration. The Court sets a status conference regarding arbitration for January 6, 2021 at 8:30 a.m.

The petition to strike Cross-Complainants’ cross-complaint is DENIED. The petition to strike Defendants’ answer is GRANTED.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISQUALIFY ARBITRATOR

Plaintiffs Corrine Kin and Aaron Kin (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Shira Clement, Morris Clement, Michael Clement, 449 Alta Vista Blvd, LLC, EJ Capital Group, LLC, M Group International, Inc., Isaac Clement, and Gaby Clement (collectively, “Defendants”) in September 2017. In April 2018, the parties stipulated to binding arbitration before a panel of three rabbis identified in the parties’ arbitration agreement, one of whom was Rabbi Shlomo Klein.

After the arbitrators issued their decision, Defendants sought to confirm the award and Plaintiffs to vacate the award. On July 12, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ petition to vacate the arbitration award because one of the arbitrators, Rabbi Teichman, failed to disclose his relationship with Defendants’ advocate, and the facts of the relationship were sufficient to create the impression of possible bias. The Court ordered the parties to select a new arbitration panel to rehear the arbitration. On February 14, 2020, the parties reported that Rabbi Klein had selected himself, Rabbi Matis Dinkels, and Rabbi ZevGoldzweig as the arbitrators.

On December 2, 2019, Rabbi Klien delivered his written disclosure to parties. (Id. at p. 5 & Ex. 6.) Rabbi Klein knows Rabbi Tauber, who served on the prior arbitration panel and as Defendants’ paid advocate, “very well” and “hold[s] him with high esteem.” (Motion at pp. 1, 4, 8 & Ex. 6; see Ex. 1 [“Arbitration Agreement”], Second Amendment.) Rabbi Klein sat with him as a Dayan on several Din Torahs, they had numerous conversations, and they were both members of the Rabbinical board of Kehilla headed by Rabbi Teichman. (Motion, Ex. 6.) Rabbi Klein also knows the Kin family very well. (Ibid.) Plaintiff Aaron Kin’s father was very close to Rabbi Klein’s wife’s grandfather (Rabbi Issacson), and helped when Rabbi Klein published Rabbi Issacson’s work. (Ibid.) Rabbi Klein and Plaintiff Aaron Kin also have a mutual best friend. (Ibid.) Rabbi Klein stated he did not believe that the disclosed relationships would affect his judgment. (Ibid.)

On December 9, 2019, Plaintiffs demanded that Rabbi Klein disqualify himself, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.91, subdivision (b) and 170.1, subd. (a)(6), because a person knowing the facts contained in his disclosure might reasonably entertain a doubt as to whether he could be impartial. (Motion at p. 5 & Ex. 7.)

On April 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed this motion to disqualify Rabbi Klein as an arbitrator. According to Plaintiffs, Rabbi Klein “has the same relationships with the paid representative advocates for the defendants . . . that caused the Court to vacate the previous arbitration award.” (Motion at p. 1.) Plaintiffs also contend that Rabbi Klein has a professional interest in maintaining public confidence in the Beit Din rulings issued by Rabbis Tauber and Teichman, would be placed in an uncomfortable position if he ruled in a manner inconsistent with the prior arbitration ruling, and might overcompensate for his perception of bias toward Plaintiffs’ family by favoring Defendants in some rulings. The parties also disagree about the proper procedure for selecting a new arbitrator if Rabbi Klein is disqualified.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of the Declaration of Elchonen Tauber, filed on June 26, 2019. (Opposition at p. 14.) Plaintiffs oppose the request because Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of the declaration’s contents. The Court denies the request. The Court cannot take judicial notice of the contents of this document, and it is not material to deciding the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

A proposed arbitrator must disclose all matters that could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt that the proposed neutral arbitrator would be able to be impartial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.9, subd. (a).) This includes the existence of any ground listed in Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1. (Ibid.) Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1, subdivision (a)(6)(A)(iii) requires disqualification where “[a] person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.” A party who agrees to arbitration before a private body does not waive their statutory rights to disqualify an arbitrator, and the private body is required to resolve objections to proposed arbitrators in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.9 and 1281.91. (Azteca Construction, Inc. v. ADR Consulting, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1168 (Azteca).)

If a party timely objects after receiving a proposed neutral arbitrator’s disclosures, “the arbitrator shall be disqualified on the basis of the disclosure statement.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.91, subd. (b)(1).) “If any ground specified in Section 170.1 exists, a neutral arbitrator shall disqualify himself or herself upon the demand of any party made before the conclusion of the arbitration proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.91, subd. (d).)

As a threshold matter, the parties have not identified a legal basis for bringing this motion. The Code of Civil Procedure does not state that if an arbitrator does not disqualify himself after a party timely objects, a party may petition the court to disqualify him. That section 1281.91 expressly gives a party the right to petition the court to disqualify a second court-appointed arbitrator, but does not expressly mention a right to petition to disqualify a neutral arbitrator, suggests that the legislature did not intend for parties to file motions to disqualify neutral arbitrators under section 1281.91. The statutory remedy for an arbitrator who is subject to disqualification but fails to disqualify himself after a party objects is a motion to vacate the award under section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(6)(B).

Because the parties have not stated a legal basis for the Court to consider whether Rabbi Klein is disqualified at this time, rather than later on a motion to vacate an award, the Court DENIES the motion.

If Rabbi Klein disqualifies himself, the procedure for selecting another arbitrator is set forth in the arbitration agreement. “If the arbitration agreement provides a method of appointing an arbitrator, that method shall be followed.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.6.) The arbitration agreement states, “in the event one arbitrator resigns or is incapacitated or can’t continue for any reason, the remaining two arbitrators may elect to continue the proceeding [and] they shall have the same powers and authority, or in the alternative they may choose a new arbitrator to replace him.”

If Rabbi Klein does not disqualify himself, the objecting party retains the right under section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(6)(B) to seek to vacate the arbitration award.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are STRONGLY encouraged to appear remotely.