This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/30/2019 at 05:17:29 (UTC).

DANIEL MEYEROV VS MARK FRIEDMAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/17/2017 DANIEL MEYEROV filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MARK FRIEDMAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1099

  • Filing Date:

    02/17/2017

  • 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

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MEYEROV DANIEL

Defendants and Respondents

TRIDENT GROUP INC

FRIEDMAN MARK

DOES 1 TO 50

ONLY BUSINESS.COM LLC

TRIDENT GROUP INC.

ONLYBUSINESS.COM LLC

CLARK WERNER

FRIEDMAN DAVID

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

HOROWITZ MARTIN L. ESQ.

LURIE BARAK

Defendant Attorneys

BAKST PATRICIA M. ESQ.

BOYDSTON BRIAN D.

FITZGIBBON THOMAS N.

 

Court Documents

Notice

10/16/2018: Notice

Declaration

11/14/2018: Declaration

Declaration

1/22/2019: Declaration

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SECURITY BY DEFENDANTS FRIEDMAN AND TRIDENT GROUP; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT

4/28/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SECURITY BY DEFENDANTS FRIEDMAN AND TRIDENT GROUP; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT

DECLARATION OF THOMAS N. FITZGIBBON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SECURITY

4/28/2017: DECLARATION OF THOMAS N. FITZGIBBON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SECURITY

MEYEROV'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SECURITY

5/17/2017: MEYEROV'S DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SECURITY

DEFENDANT, ONLYBUSINESS.COM, LLC'S, EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF DANIEL MYEROV

5/24/2017: DEFENDANT, ONLYBUSINESS.COM, LLC'S, EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF DANIEL MYEROV

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

5/30/2017: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

5/30/2017: AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT

RULING

5/31/2017: RULING

DECLARATION OF THOMAS N. FITZGIBBON RE TIMING OF MEET AND CONFER RE DEMURRER AND PROVIDING 30-DAY EXTENSION UNDER CCP 430.41 (A)(2)

6/12/2017: DECLARATION OF THOMAS N. FITZGIBBON RE TIMING OF MEET AND CONFER RE DEMURRER AND PROVIDING 30-DAY EXTENSION UNDER CCP 430.41 (A)(2)

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING THE AUGUST 18, 2017 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

8/14/2017: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING THE AUGUST 18, 2017 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING FOR DEMURRERS OF MARK FRIEDMAN AND TRIDENT GROUP, INC.

8/14/2017: AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING FOR DEMURRERS OF MARK FRIEDMAN AND TRIDENT GROUP, INC.

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY DEFENDANT, ONLYBUSINESS.COM FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A NEUTRAL ACCOUNTANT AND FOR STAY OF LITIGATION

10/3/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY DEFENDANT, ONLYBUSINESS.COM FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A NEUTRAL ACCOUNTANT AND FOR STAY OF LITIGATION

NOTICE OF RULING

10/23/2017: NOTICE OF RULING

Minute Order

10/30/2017: Minute Order

DEFENSE PROPOSAL FOR NEUTRAL ACCOUNTANT PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER

11/20/2017: DEFENSE PROPOSAL FOR NEUTRAL ACCOUNTANT PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER

DECLARATION OF BRENT A. KRAMER ESQ. RE COMPLIANCE WITH NEUTRAL ACCOUNTANT ORDER

11/20/2017: DECLARATION OF BRENT A. KRAMER ESQ. RE COMPLIANCE WITH NEUTRAL ACCOUNTANT ORDER

79 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/07/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (Stipulation Re Modification of Schedule); Filed by Daniel Meyerov (Plaintiff); Mark Friedman (Defendant); Onlybusiness.Com, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2019
  • Declaration (Status Update Declaration); Filed by Onlybusiness.Com, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Trident Group, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2018
  • Minute Order ((Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2018
  • Declaration (of Neutral Accountant Howard B. Grobstein, CPA/CFF, CFE); Filed by Howard B. Grobstein, CPA/CFF, CFE (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
193 More Docket Entries
  • 03/29/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Daniel Meyerov (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Daniel Meyerov (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2017
  • Notice of Related Case; Filed by Daniel Meyerov (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2017
  • NOTICE OF RELATED CASES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Daniel Meyerov (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/17/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR 1. BREACH OF OPERATING AGREEMENT ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC651099    Hearing Date: December 27, 2019    Dept: 48

(1) MOTION TO PERMIT FILING OF PORTIONS OF NEURAL ACCOUNTANT REPORT UNDER SEAL;

(2) MOTION COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS;

(3) & (4) DEMURRERS TO FIRST AMENDED DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT (x2)

MOVING PARTY: (1) Defendants Mark Friedman and Trident Group, Inc.;

(2) Plaintiff Daniel Meyerov;

(3) Defendant OnlyBusiness.com, LLC;

(4) Defendants Mark Friedman, Trident Group, David Friedman and Werner Clark

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) No opposition filed;

(2) No opposition filed;

(3) Plaintiff Daniel Meyerov;

(4) Plaintiff Daniel Meyerov

PROOF OF SERVICE:

Defendants Mark Friedman and Trident Group, Inc. move for an order permitting filing of portions of neutral accountant report under seal. In particular, the Motion seeks an order (1) sealing/redacting the Report at pages 7-12, 19-22, 25-29, 32-33, 39-88, and (2) sealing/redacting Exhibits F-M, P-BB, and DD-KK (the “Sealing Order”).

By way of the December 5, 2019 minute order, the Court granted the motion to seal in part and otherwise denied the motion. The court ordered moving party to submit a supplemental brief and proposed order by December 20, 2019 specifically identifying the portions of the report containing tax return information to be sealed. The Court has not yet received these documents. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to place the entire neutral accountant report in the public record, unless moving party can demonstrate that compliance with the Court’s December 5, 2019 order is imminent.

Motions to Compel Compliance with Subpoena

Plaintiff Daniel Meyerov moves to compel compliance with the subpoena issued to non-party Vu Pham, and requests sanctions.

Plaintiff did not submit a proof of service reflecting service of this motion upon Vu Pham, against whom sanctions are being sought. Accordingly, the hearing on the motion to compel compliance is CONTINUED to January 22, 2020. Proof of service re: notice of this motion and continuance is due January 13, 2020.

Defendant OnlyBusiness.com, LLC’s Demurrer

Defendant OnlyBusiness.com, LLC demurs to the First Amended Derivative Complaint.

However, no meet and confer declaration was submitted, as required by CCP § 430.41. Accordingly, the hearing on the demurrer is CONTINUED to January 22, 2020. Meet and confer declaration is due January 13, 2020.

Defendants Mark Friedman, Trident Group, David Friedman and Werner Clark’s Demurrer

Defendants Mark Friedman, Trident Group, David Friedman and Werner Clark demur to the First Amended Derivative Complaint.

The Court’s electronic records do not show that a meet and confer declaration, or supporting memorandum of points and authorities were filed. Accordingly, the hearing on the demurrer is CONTINUED to January 22, 2020. Conformed copies of the meet and confer declaration and supporting memorandum of points and authorities are due January 13, 2020.

Case Number: BC651099    Hearing Date: December 17, 2019    Dept: 48

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Daniel Meyerov

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No opposition filed;

PROOF OF SERVICE:

Case Number: BC651099    Hearing Date: December 05, 2019    Dept: 48

(1) MOTION TO PERMIT FILING OF PORTIONS OF NEURAL ACCOUNTANT REPORT UNDER SEAL;

(2) & (3) MOTION FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES DISCOVERY (x2)

(4) MOTION FOR TERMINATING, EVIDENTIARY AND MONETARY SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: (1) Defendants Mark Friedman and Trident Group, Inc.;

(2) Plaintiff Daniel Meyerov;

(3) Plaintiff Daniel Meyerov;

(4) Plaintiff Daniel Meyerov

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) No opposition filed;

(2) Defendant Mark Friedman;

(3) No opposition filed.

(4) Defendants Mark Friedman, David Friedman, Werner Clark and Trident Group, Inc.

PROOF OF SERVICE:

Defendants Mark Friedman and Trident Group, Inc. move for an order permitting filing of portions of neutral accountant report under seal. In particular, the Motion seeks an order (1) sealing/redacting the Report at pages 7-12, 19-22, 25-29, 32-33, 39-88, and (2) sealing/redacting Exhibits F-M, P-BB, and DD-KK (the “Sealing Order”).

By way of the October 3, 2019 minute order, the Court granted the motion to seal in part and otherwise denied the motion. The court ordered moving party to submit a supplemental brief and proposed order by October 18, 2019 specifically identifying the portions of the report containing tax return information to be sealed. The Court has not yet received these documents. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to place the entire neutral accountant report in the public record, unless moving party can demonstrate that compliance with the Court’s October 3, 2019 order is imminent.

Motions To Conduct Punitive Damages Discovery

Defendants’ request that the Court take judicial notice of court documents filed in this action is GRANTED per Evid. Code § 452(d)(court records).

Plaintiff Daniel Meyerov moves for an order permitting punitive damages discovery against Defendants Mark Friedman, David Friedman and Trident Group, Inc.

Civil Code § 3295(c) provides in pertinent part:

(c)  No pretrial discovery by the plaintiff shall be permitted with respect to the evidence referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) unless the court enters an order permitting such discovery pursuant to this subdivision. . . . Upon motion by the plaintiff supported by appropriate affidavits and after a hearing, if the court deems a hearing to be necessary, the court may at any time enter an order permitting the discovery otherwise prohibited by this subdivision if the court finds, on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented, that the plaintiff has established that there is a substantial probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim pursuant to Section 3294. Such order shall not be considered to be a determination on the merits of the claim or any defense thereto and shall not be given in evidence or referred to at the trial.

“We hold here that before a trial court may enter an order allowing discovery of financial condition information under Civil Code section 3295, subdivision (c) . . ., it must (1) weigh the evidence presented by both sides, and (2) make a finding that it is very likely the plaintiff will prevail on his claim for punitive damages.” Jabro v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 754, 755 (bold emphasis added).

Against this backdrop of legislative intent, in which protecting the financial privacy of defendants is paramount, we interpret the language of section 3295(c), requiring the trial court to find based on supporting and opposing affidavits that the plaintiff has established there is a substantial probability he will prevail on his claim for punitive damages, to mean that before a court may enter an order permitting discovery of a defendant's financial condition, it must (1) weigh the evidence submitted in favor of and in opposition to motion for discovery, and (2) make a finding that it is very likely the plaintiff will prevail on his claim for punitive damages. In this context, we interpret the words "substantial probability" to mean "very likely" or "a strong likelihood" just as their plain meaning suggests. We note that the Legislature did not use the term "reasonable probability" or simply "probability," which would imply a lower threshold of "more likely than not."

Id. at 758 (bold emphasis added).

In contrast, section 3295(c) concerns a defendant's right to privacy and protection from being forced to settle unmeritorious lawsuits in order to protect this right. It is a discovery statute and does not implicate the traditional factfinding process or the right to a jury trial in any way. Indeed, section 3295(c) expressly states that an order thereunder "shall not be considered to be a determination on the merits of the claim or any defense thereto and shall not be given in evidence or referred to at the trial." (§ 3295(c).) Finally, although no court has specifically addressed section 3295(c) and interpreted the statute as allowing financial condition discovery based on a prima facie showing sufficient to avoid

The Court agrees with Defendants that it is premature to permit punitive damages discovery when the case is not even at issue as to the operative complaint. It is unknown whether any causes of action which may support punitive damages will remain.

More importantly, the Court has reviewed the portions of the neutral accountant report cited by Defendants, and agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a substantial probably of prevailing on his claim for punitive damages against Defendants Mark Friedman, David Friedman and Trident Group, Inc.

Accordingly, both motions to conduct punitive damages discovery as against Defendants Mark Friedman, David Friedman and Trident Group, Inc. is DENIED.

Motion For Terminating, Evidentiary and Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections

Declaration of Thomas N. Fitzgibbon

No. 1: SUSTAINED. Lack of foundation.

No. 2: SUSTAINED. Lack of personal knowledge.

No. 3: OVERRULED. Relevant.

No. 4: SUSTAINED. Lack of personal knowledge.

No. 5: SUSTAINED. Hearsay.

No. 6: SUSTAINED. Lack of personal knowledge.

No. 7: OVERRULED. Permissible legal opinion by counsel.

No. 8: SUSTAINED. Lack of personal knowledge.

No. 9: SUSTAINED. Lack of personal knowledge.

No. 10: SUSTAINED. Hearsay.

No. 11. OVERRULED. Relevant.

No. 12: SUSTAINED. Lack of personal knowledge.

No. 13: SUSTAINED. Hearsay.

No. 14: SUSTAINED. Hearsay.

Declaration of Tara Jackson

No. 1: SUSTAINED. Inadmissible lay opinion.

Declaration of Vu Pham

No. 1: SUSTAINED. Hearsay.

No. 2: SUSTAINED. Hearsay.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for terminating, evidentiary and monetary sanctions against Defendants for spoliation of evidence.

“Spoliation” is “ ‘the destruction or significant alteration of evidence, or the failure to preserve property for another's use as evidence in pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation.’ ” (Byrnie, supra, 243 F.3d at p. 107.) “[D]estruction of evidence relevant to proof of an issue at trial can support an inference that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the party responsible for its destruction.” (Kronisch v. U.S. (2d Cir. 1998) 150 F.3d 112, 126 (Kronisch); see also Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 11 [74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 248, 954 P.2d 511] (Cedars-Sinai).) “In order for an adverse inference to arise from the destruction of evidence, the party having control over the evidence must have had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed.” (Kronisch, supra, 150 F.3d at p. 126.) In addition, the party seeking the benefit of an inference from spoliation “must demonstrate first that the records were destroyed with a  [*682]  culpable state of mind (i.e. where, for example, the records were destroyed knowingly, even if without intent to violate [a] regulation [requiring their retention], or negligently). Second, a party must show that the destroyed records were relevant to the party's claim or defense.” (Byrnie, supra, 243 F.3d at p. 109; but see Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 14 [“there will typically be no way of telling what precisely the evidence would have shown and how much it would have weighed in the spoliation victim's favor”].)

Reeves v. MV Transportation, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 666, 681-82.

The Court finds that the modifications of which Plaintiff complains go to weight of the evidence, to be aided by the Neutral Accountant Report, as it pertains to the merits of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants. Such weighing of evidence is to occur at trial. As Defendants state in their opposition at Page 10:9-10: “Meyerov challenges whether the changes or actions were proper, a matter to be resolved at trial, not on a Motion for Spoliation.” The Court does not find sufficient evidence that Defendants engaged in spoliation which would warrant sanctions at this stage of the litigation.

The motion for terminating, evidentiary and $47,000 in monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Defendants’ request for $33,600 in monetary sanctions is likewise DENIED.

Case Number: BC651099    Hearing Date: November 04, 2019    Dept: 48

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Daniel Meyerov

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No opposition filed.

PROOF OF SERVICE:

ANALYSIS

Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena

It is unclear whether non-party Andrew Friedman received notice of such a motion, for instance, by service upon an attorney representing Friedman.

Plaintiff Daniel Meyerov moves to compel compliance with the subpoena served upon non-party Andrew Friedman and requests sanctions. The basis for this motion is CCP §§ 2020.220(c) and 2025.450. See Notice of Motion, Page 2:9-10. However, neither of these code sections authorize a motion to compel compliance and imposition of sanctions against a non-party witness:

CCP § 2020.220(c) provides:

(c) Personal service of any deposition subpoena is effective to require all of the following of any deponent who is a resident of California at the time of service:

(1) Personal attendance and testimony, if the subpoena so specifies.

(2) Any specified production, inspection, testing, and sampling.

(3) The deponent’s attendance at a court session to consider any issue arising out of the deponent’s refusal to be sworn, or to answer any question, or to produce specified items, or to permit inspection or photocopying, if the subpoena so specifies, or specified testing and sampling of the items produced.

CCP § 2025.450(a) provides:

(a) If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(Bold emphasis added.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to cite statutory authority to compel non-party Andrew Friedman to comply with the subpoena and for the imposition of sanctions against him.

The motion to compel compliance and request for sanctions is DENIED without prejudice to bringing a newly-noticed motion to compel based upon the applicable statute.