This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/11/2021 at 00:05:21 (UTC).

DAVID K. GOTTLIEB VS LOU ALEXANDER

Case Summary

On 04/11/2017 DAVID K GOTTLIEB filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against LOU ALEXANDER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is NANCY L. NEWMAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7359

  • Filing Date:

    04/11/2017

  • 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

NANCY L. NEWMAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

GOTTLIEB DAVID K.

Defendants

ALEXANDER LOU

LOU ALEXANDER

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

MCDOW ASHLEY M.

MCDOW ASHLEY MARIE

ATALLAH JOHN J.

Defendant Attorneys

LEONARD RICHARD C.

WADDINGTON MICHAEL

MICHAEL WADDINGTON

LANDSBERG IAN SCOTT

 

Court Documents

Other - - OTHER - REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM ELECTRONIC FILING SERVICE

8/23/2019: Other - - OTHER - REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM ELECTRONIC FILING SERVICE

Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

1/9/2020: Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (PLAINTIFF DAVID GOTTLIEB'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER ...)

1/13/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (PLAINTIFF DAVID GOTTLIEB'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER ...)

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT FURTHER DISCOVERY) - 1 MOVING PARTY, 1 MOTION RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

2/4/2020: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT FURTHER DISCOVERY) - 1 MOVING PARTY, 1 MOTION RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT FURTHER DISCOVERY) - 1 MOVING PARTY, 1 MOTION DEFENDANT'S RESOPNSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

2/4/2020: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT FURTHER DISCOVERY) - 1 MOVING PARTY, 1 MOTION DEFENDANT'S RESOPNSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED...)

9/18/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED...)

Substitution of Attorney

9/29/2020: Substitution of Attorney

Motion for Leave to Amend - MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER

9/29/2020: Motion for Leave to Amend - MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER

Notice - NOTICE OF ERRATA RE CORRECTED HEARING DATE

10/1/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF ERRATA RE CORRECTED HEARING DATE

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF DAVID K. GOTTLIEBS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

10/8/2020: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF DAVID K. GOTTLIEBS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER AND TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

10/20/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER AND TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

Notice of Ruling

11/19/2020: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO APPEAR ON 11/1...)

11/30/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO APPEAR ON 11/1...)

Case Management Statement

7/20/2017: Case Management Statement

Substitution of Attorney

1/31/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-02-27 00:00:00

2/27/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-02-27 00:00:00

Answer

5/1/2018: Answer

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

11/16/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

58 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/21/2021
  • Hearing06/21/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department P at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2021
  • Hearing06/11/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department P at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department P; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department P; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department P; Order to Show Cause Re: (defendant's failure to appear on 11/16/20) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: defendant's failure to appear on 11/1...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/19/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by David K. Gottlieb (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department P; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department P; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
115 More Docket Entries
  • 07/21/2017
  • DocketMiscellaneous-Other (CIVIL DEPOSIT ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2017
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by David K. Gottlieb (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2017
  • DocketStatement-Case Management; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2017
  • DocketMotion to Compel; Filed by Lou Alexander (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2017
  • DocketMotion to Compel (ARBITRATION ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by David K. Gottlieb (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2017
  • DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2017
  • DocketComplaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC127359    Hearing Date: October 29, 2020    Dept: P

 

Tentative Ruling

Gottlieb v. Alexander, Case No. SC127359

Hearing Date October 29, 2020

Plaintiff Gottlieb’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Third party real estate agent D’Arco had a listing agreement with defendant Alexander whereby D’Arco’s commission would be placed into an escrow account, then distributed. D’Arco alleges defendant failed to escrow the funds. D’Arco filed for Chapters 7 and 11 bankruptcy protection, listing the $225,000 commission as an asset.

Plaintiff, one of D’Arco’s creditors, sues defendant Alexander to recover the commission. The court issued an order deeming admitted plaintiff’s requests for admission on February 28, 2020. Plaintiff moves for summary judgment.

Admissions in response to RFAs are treated as stipulations regarding the truthfulness of the matters admitted; no other evidence is necessary. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §2033.300. Matters deemed admitted are not subject to being contested through contradictory evidence. E.g. Bank of America Nat. Trust & Sav. Ass’n. v. Baker (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 778, 779.

Unclean hands is an equitable affirmative defense that can be invoked by conduct that violates “conscience, good faith, or other equitable standards of conduct[.]” Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Super. Ct. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 970, 979.

Plaintiff argues the matters deemed admitted via the February 28, 2020 order establish every element of his causes of action for breach of the listing agreement and supplemental agreement. Defendant argues an unclean hands defense to both causes of action, alleging plaintiff violated California Rule of Professional Conduct, Rule 18.1 when forming the agreements. Defendant provides evidence the agreements were unreasonable, were not in writing and the terms were not fully disclosed, sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to a violation of Rule 18.1, all of which could establish an affirmative defense of unclean hands. Alexander Decl. ¶¶ 15-17. Admissions to the RFAs do not defeat this defense, and defendant’s evidence raises an issue of material fact as to the validity of the affirmative defense, which is unrefuted by plaintiff. DENIED.

DUE TO THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPEAR VIA LA COURT CONNECT.

Case Number: SC127359    Hearing Date: February 28, 2020    Dept: P

 

Tentative Ruling

David K. Gottlieb v. Lou Alexander Case No. SC127359

Hearing Date: February 28, 2020

Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Discovery (UNOPPOSED)

Plaintiff served form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production of documents and requests for admission on July 24, 2019. Despite multiple extensions, defendant has not responded. Plaintiff moves to compel.

A party may move to compel production if the party in receipt of proper written discovery requests, including interrogatories and requests for production of documents, does not timely respond. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§2030.300, 2031.300. If a party fails to timely respond to a request for admissions, the requesting party may move for an order that the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §0233.280. A court may impose monetary sanctions (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2023.010) for failure to engage in the discovery process.

Plaintiff provides copies of the propounded discovery, with a proof of service dated July 24, 2019. Plaintiff’s Exhibits A-D. A declaration from counsel states as of February 4, 2020, defendant has not responded. Defendant does not oppose. The motion is GRANTED.

Defendant to respond without objections to the interrogatories and requests for production within 20 days. All matters in the requests for admission are deemed admitted. Sanctions are warranted. Plaintiff requests $4,000.00 in costs and fees, as well as an additional $1,500.00 for anticipated additional briefing. Atallah Decl. at ¶12. As defendant did not oppose the motions, no further briefing was required, and the additional $1,500.00 was not incurred. $4,000.00 is excessive, given the straightforward nature of these motions and plaintiff’s failure to provide justification for his claimed costs and fees. Defendant to pay $2,000.00 in sanctions, within 30 days.