This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/11/2020 at 10:56:09 (UTC).

DAVID MICHAELS VS BARRY LISS

Case Summary

On 02/08/2018 DAVID MICHAELS filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against BARRY LISS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARC D. GROSS, JON R. TAKASUGI, HOLLY E. KENDIG and THOMAS D. LONG. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3400

  • Filing Date:

    02/08/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MARC D. GROSS

JON R. TAKASUGI

HOLLY E. KENDIG

THOMAS D. LONG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

MICHAELS DAVID

Defendants and Respondents

LISS BARRY

DOES 1 TO 10

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

LAGSTEIN ERAN ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

COLLINSON LISA D. ESQ.

MYERS JEFFREY CABOT ESQ.

KOTHARY PRITESH S ESQ.

COLLINSON LISA DAWN ESQ.

DOUGLAS STACY LYNNE ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT)) OF 03/23/2020

3/23/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT)) OF 03/23/2020

Notice of Settlement

3/3/2020: Notice of Settlement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

3/3/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT BARRY LISS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7

2/18/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT BARRY LISS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7

Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO, 7 TO PRECLUDE SPECULATIVE WITNESS TESTIMONY

2/6/2020: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO, 7 TO PRECLUDE SPECULATIVE WITNESS TESTIMONY

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF STACY L. DOUGLAS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTIONS IN LIMINE N0.1-9

2/6/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF STACY L. DOUGLAS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTIONS IN LIMINE N0.1-9

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF BARRY LISS

10/16/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF BARRY LISS

Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY INTO DEFENDANT BARRY LISS' FINANCIAL CONDITIONS PURSUANT TO CIVIL CODE SECTION 3295

9/25/2019: Reply - REPLY PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY INTO DEFENDANT BARRY LISS' FINANCIAL CONDITIONS PURSUANT TO CIVIL CODE SECTION 3295

[Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

5/10/2019: [Proposed Order] and Stipulation to Continue Trial, FSC (and Related Motion/Discovery Dates) Person - [PROPOSED ORDER] AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC (AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES) PERSO

Answer - ANSWER OF BARRY LISS' ANSWER TO PLTF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

3/21/2019: Answer - ANSWER OF BARRY LISS' ANSWER TO PLTF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (1-HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'...)

3/11/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (1-HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'...)

Separate Statement

2/26/2019: Separate Statement

Separate Statement

2/26/2019: Separate Statement

Reply - Reply PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF DAVID MICHAELS' FORM INTERROGATORIES TO BARRY LISS (SET ONE) AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

3/4/2019: Reply - Reply PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF DAVID MICHAELS' FORM INTERROGATORIES TO BARRY LISS (SET ONE) AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Proof of Service by Mail

3/5/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL - REMAND TO SUPERIOR COURT (CIVIL)

7/30/2018: LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL - REMAND TO SUPERIOR COURT (CIVIL)

DEFENDANT BARRY LISS' ANSWFR TO THE COMPLAINT

8/7/2018: DEFENDANT BARRY LISS' ANSWFR TO THE COMPLAINT

SUMMONS -

2/8/2018: SUMMONS -

65 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/02/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2020
  • DocketOrder - Dismissal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by David Michaels (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2020
  • DocketNotice of Continuance Due to COVID-19 State of Emergency Declarations; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([Notice of Continuance Due to COVID-19 State of Emergency Declarations]); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2020
  • Docketat 09:40 AM in Department 31, Thomas D. Long, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re: Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
84 More Docket Entries
  • 06/07/2018
  • DocketDEFENDANT BARRY LISS' NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CASE TO FEDERAL COURT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2018
  • DocketNotice of Removal to Federal Court; Filed by Barry Liss (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2018
  • DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by David Michaels (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2018
  • DocketFIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2018
  • DocketComplaint ((1st)); Filed by David Michaels (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2018
  • DocketSTIPULATION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2018
  • DocketStipulation; Filed by David Michaels (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by David Michaels (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC693400    Hearing Date: November 12, 2019    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

DAVID MICHAELS,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

BARRY LISS, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC693400

ORDER

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

October 29, 2019

1. Background Facts

Plaintiff, David Michaels filed this action against Defendant, Barry Liss for damages arising out of an automobile v. motorcycle accident.

2. Motion to Compel Deposition

The issue at this time is whether Plaintiff is entitled to depose Defendant in New York. Defendant contends he lives full-time in Italy. Plaintiff contends Defendant lives, at least part-time, in New York.

a. Authority Governing Motions to Compel Remote Depositions

CCP §§2025.250 and 2025.260 govern motions to compel a party to the action to attend a deposition more than 75 miles away from the party’s residence. §2025.260(b) sets forth the factors to be considered in determining whether to grant such relief. The factors include:

(1) Whether the moving party selected the forum.

(2) Whether the deponent will be present to testify at the trial of the action.

(3) The convenience of the deponent.

(4) The feasibility of conducting the deposition by written questions under Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 2028.010), or of using a discovery method other than a deposition.

(5) The number of depositions sought to be taken at a place more distant than that permitted under Section 2025.250.

(6) The expense to the parties of requiring the deposition to be taken within the distance permitted under Section 2025.250.

(7) The whereabouts of the deponent at the time for which the deposition is scheduled.

b. Residence

Defendant contends he moved to Italy full-time in June of 2018, after he got married. Plaintiff contends Defendant lives, at least part-time, in New York. Plaintiff relies on Defendant’s notice of request for removal, dated June of 2018, wherein Defendant took the position that he resides “both in New York and Italy.” Notably, Defendant took this position because a prior request for removal had been denied on the ground that Defendant, solely as a resident of Italy, could not remove a case to federal court.

The Court is concerned that Defendant appears to change his stated residence based on what suits him. Defendant first filed a notice of removal on 6/06/18, at which time he stated he resides full-time in Italy. He then filed a second notice of removal on 6/29/18, wherein he stated that he resides part-time in New York and part-time in Italy. He now declares, in this motion, that he resides full-time in Italy and has done so since June of 2018.

The Court finds Defendant is not credible. Defendant cannot make claims about residency that suit his needs at various stages of the proceedings. This is the definition of judicial estoppel.

That being said, the Court is concerned about Defendant’s contention that he has cancer and cannot travel from Italy to New York. Plaintiff correctly notes, in opposition to the motion, that there is no medical evidence submitted with the opposition. However, this is a very serious consideration, and is supported by Defendant’s own declaration.

On balance, the Court would be inclined to deny the motion if either (a) Defendant is willing to formally stipulate to liability for the accident, or (b) Defendant is willing to formally stipulate that he will not attend or testify at trial. Defendant, in his opposition to the motion, indicates he is not “likely” to be able to travel for the trial. This is insufficient. If Defendant is not able/willing to travel to New York for his deposition, he cannot then turn around and travel to Los Angeles to testify at the trial.

The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer and second-called the matter. Defense counsel will talk to Defendant to determine whether he can come to the United States for deposition or if he is willing to commit to not appearing at trial. Court and counsel discuss the possibility of Plaintiff paying for at least half his air flight and three days hotel accommodation if he comes to Los Angeles, but likely $0 if the deposition is within 75 miles of his purported New York residence. If there is going to be a deposition of Defendant, it is to occur prior January 1, 2020.

The hearing is continued to November 12, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. so Defense counsel can confer with her client and work out logistics. If the parties can work out an agreement for Defendant’s deposition, they do not have to appear and can file a stipulation and order which the Court will sign.

The trial in this matter is continued by stipulation to March 17, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. with an FSC March 3, 2020, at 10 a.m.

Notice waived.

Case Number: BC693400    Hearing Date: October 29, 2019    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

DAVID MICHAELS,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

BARRY LISS, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC693400

[TENTATIVE] ORDER

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

October 29, 2019

1. Background Facts

Plaintiff, David Michaels filed this action against Defendant, Barry Liss for damages arising out of an automobile v. motorcycle accident.

2. Motion to Compel Deposition

The issue at this time is whether Plaintiff is entitled to depose Defendant in New York. Defendant contends he lives full-time in Italy. Plaintiff contends Defendant lives, at least part-time, in New York.

a. Authority Governing Motions to Compel Remote Depositions

CCP §§2025.250 and 2025.260 govern motions to compel a party to the action to attend a deposition more than 75 miles away from the party’s residence. §2025.260(b) sets forth the factors to be considered in determining whether to grant such relief. The factors include:

(1) Whether the moving party selected the forum.

(2) Whether the deponent will be present to testify at the trial of the action.

(3) The convenience of the deponent.

(4) The feasibility of conducting the deposition by written questions under Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 2028.010), or of using a discovery method other than a deposition.

(5) The number of depositions sought to be taken at a place more distant than that permitted under Section 2025.250.

(6) The expense to the parties of requiring the deposition to be taken within the distance permitted under Section 2025.250.

(7) The whereabouts of the deponent at the time for which the deposition is scheduled.

b. Residence

Defendant contends he moved to Italy full-time in June of 2018, after he got married. Plaintiff contends Defendant lives, at least part-time, in New York. Plaintiff relies on Defendant’s notice of request for removal, dated June of 2018, wherein Defendant took the position that he resides “both in New York and Italy.” Notably, Defendant took this position because a prior request for removal had been denied on the ground that Defendant, solely as a resident of Italy, could not remove a case to federal court.

The Court is concerned that Defendant appears to change his stated residence based on what suits him. Defendant first filed a notice of removal on 6/06/18, at which time he stated he resides full-time in Italy. He then filed a second notice of removal on 6/29/18, wherein he stated that he resides part-time in New York and part-time in Italy. He now declares, in this motion, that he resides full-time in Italy and has done so since June of 2018.

The Court finds Defendant is not credible. Defendant cannot make claims about residency that suit his needs at various stages of the proceedings. This is the definition of judicial estoppel.

That being said, the Court is concerned about Defendant’s contention that he has cancer and cannot travel from Italy to New York. Plaintiff correctly notes, in opposition to the motion, that there is no medical evidence submitted with the opposition. However, this is a very serious consideration, and is supported by Defendant’s own declaration.

On balance, the Court would be inclined to deny the motion if either (a) Defendant is willing to formally stipulate to liability for the accident, or (b) Defendant is willing to formally stipulate that he will not attend or testify at trial. Defendant, in his opposition to the motion, indicates he is not “likely” to be able to travel for the trial. This is insufficient. If Defendant is not able/willing to travel to New York for his deposition, he cannot then turn around and travel to Los Angeles to testify at the trial.

The parties are ordered to meet and confer to either draft a stipulation per the above, or to choose a date, time, and location for a deposition in New York. The Court notes that trial is scheduled for 1/14/20, and therefore the deposition, if it goes forward, must go forward within the next 45 days.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.