This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/28/2020 at 08:54:59 (UTC).

EMORY PARK INC VS 2202 EAST ANDERSON STREET LLC

Case Summary

On 05/17/2018 EMORY PARK INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against 2202 EAST ANDERSON STREET LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MARGARET MILLER BERNAL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7151

  • Filing Date:

    05/17/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Norwalk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MARGARET MILLER BERNAL

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

EMORY PARK INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Defendants

1102 EAST ANDERSON STREET LLC A LIMITED

VANOUNOU ZION AN INDIVIDUAL

2202 EAST ANDERSON STREET LLC A LIMITED

VANOUNOU ZION

VANOUNOU MOSHE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

KIM STEVEN C. LAW OFFICES OF

KIM STEVEN CHUL

ELYASHAR HENRY AARON

COLORADO GABRIEL

Defendant Attorneys

REICH JACOB

TIOMKIN ELLIOTT

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S ORDER...)

10/13/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S ORDER...)

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE

10/13/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE

Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO THE MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND

8/20/2020: Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO THE MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND

Supplemental Declaration - SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF GABRIEL COLORADO IN SUPPORT OF EMORY PARK, INC. 'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO THE MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE FORM INTERROGATORIES

8/20/2020: Supplemental Declaration - SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF GABRIEL COLORADO IN SUPPORT OF EMORY PARK, INC. 'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO THE MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE FORM INTERROGATORIES

Declaration - DECLARATION OF STEVEN C. KIM SUPPORT OF EMORY PARK, INC. 'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO THE MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE FORM

8/20/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF STEVEN C. KIM SUPPORT OF EMORY PARK, INC. 'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO THE MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE FORM

Supplemental Declaration - SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF GABRIEL COLORADO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

2/4/2020: Supplemental Declaration - SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF GABRIEL COLORADO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF GABRIEL COLORADOINSUPPORTOFEMORY PARK, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAN

1/3/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF GABRIEL COLORADOINSUPPORTOFEMORY PARK, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAN

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT 2202 EAST ANDERSON STREET, LLC (SET ONE)

10/28/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED ON DEFENDANT 2202 EAST ANDERSON STREET, LLC (SET ONE)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

10/16/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

Order - ORDER TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THE DEMURRER AND THE MOTION TO STRIKE

9/24/2019: Order - ORDER TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THE DEMURRER AND THE MOTION TO STRIKE

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE THE PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM THE COMPLAINT

9/16/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE THE PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM THE COMPLAINT

Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil - ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL-CIVIL AS TO 220 EAST ANDERSON ST., LLC

9/11/2019: Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil - ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL-CIVIL AS TO 220 EAST ANDERSON ST., LLC

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL; HEARING ON MOTIO...)

9/11/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL; HEARING ON MOTIO...)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Default Prove Up Hearing)

2/11/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Default Prove Up Hearing)

Summons

5/17/2018: Summons

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl

6/11/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl

Request for Entry of Default (Fair Debt Buying Practices Act) -

8/6/2018: Request for Entry of Default (Fair Debt Buying Practices Act) -

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment -

9/13/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment -

129 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/11/2021
  • Hearing03/11/2021 at 14:30 PM in Department C at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2021
  • Hearing02/25/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department C at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/25/2021
  • Hearing02/25/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department C at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2021
  • Hearing01/26/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/17/2020
  • Hearing12/17/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/23/2020
  • DocketMotion for Terminating Sanctions (of Plaintiff re: Defendant's Failure to Comply); Filed by EMORY PARK INC., a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/23/2020
  • DocketSeparate Statement (of Plaintiff ISO Motion for Terminating Sanctions re: Production of Documents); Filed by EMORY PARK INC., a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/23/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (of Gabriel Colorado ISO Plaintiffs Motion to Terminate Sanctions); Filed by EMORY PARK INC., a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2020
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2020
  • DocketCourt Order/Ruling (Hearing 11-18-20); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
173 More Docket Entries
  • 06/11/2018
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by EMORY PARK INC., a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl (SUBSTITUTE SERVICE AS TO ZION VANOUNOU ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl (SUBSTITUTE SERVICE AS TO 2202 EAST ANDERSON STREET LLC ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • DocketNotice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2018
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: VC067151    Hearing Date: November 18, 2020    Dept: C

EMORY PARK, INC. v. 2202 EAST ANDERSON STREET LLC, et al.

CASE NO.: VC067151

HEARING: 11/18/20 @ 1:30 PM

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

#8

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defense counsel, Elliott Tiomkin’s motion to be relieved as counsel for 2202 East Anderson Street LLC and Zion Vanounou is GRANTED. The order shall take effect when the proofs of service of the signed order on the clients have been filed with the court.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defense counsel, Elliott Tiomkin moves to be relieved as counsel for 2202 East Anderson Street LLC and Zion Vanounou.

Good cause exists to grant the motion based on any of the grounds under Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-700(C). Rule 3-700(c) provides that an attorney may withdraw based on any of the following: (1) The client (a) insists upon presenting a claim or defense that is not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, or (b) seeks to pursue an illegal course of conduct, or (c) insists that the member pursue a course of conduct that is illegal or that is prohibited under these rules or the State Bar Act, or (d) by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively, or (e) insists, in a matter not pending before a tribunal, that the member engage in conduct that is contrary to the judgment and advice of the member but not prohibited under these rules or the State Bar Act, or (f) breaches an agreement or obligation to the member as to expenses or fees. (2) The continued employment is likely to result in a violation of these rules or of the State Bar Act; or (3) the inability to work with co-counsel indicates that the best interests of the client likely will be served by withdrawal; or (4) The member's mental or physical condition renders it difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively; or (5) The client knowingly and freely assents to termination of the employment; or (6) The member believes in good faith, in a proceeding pending before a tribunal, that the tribunal will find the existence of other good cause for withdrawal.

The attorney declaration demonstrates good cause for withdrawal based on a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. The clients were served by mail at the client’s last known address, which was confirmed to be current within the past 30 days.

The motion is GRANTED. The order shall take effect when the proofs of service of the signed order on the clients have been filed with the court.

Case Number: VC067151    Hearing Date: October 13, 2020    Dept: C

EMORY PARK, INC. v. 2202 EAST ANDERSON STREET LLC, et al.

CASE NO.: VC067151

HEARING: 10/13/20

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

#5

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff Emory Park, Inc.’s unopposed motion to compel compliance with the court’s order is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to produce documents within 20 days. Sanctions are imposed against Defendant and counsel, jointly and severally in the reasonable sum of $4,260.00, within 30 days.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Emory Park, Inc. moves to compel compliance with the court’s prior order on 2/6/20.

If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection thereafter fails to permit the inspection, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance. (CCP § 2031.320(a).) If a party fails to obey an order compelling inspection, the court may impose a monetary sanction. (CCP § 2031.320(c).)

On 2/6/20, this court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to demand for production of documents, and ordered responses served within 30 days.

To date, Defendant failed to comply with this court’s order, and failed to file any opposition. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Defendant is once again ordered to produce documents within 20 days.

Sanctions are imposed against Defendant and counsel, jointly and severally in the reasonable sum of $4,260.00, within 30 days.

Case Number: VC067151    Hearing Date: August 27, 2020    Dept: C

EMORY PARK, INC. vs EAST ANDERSON STREET, LLC

CASE NO.: VC067151

HEARING: 8/27/2020

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

#8

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff Emory Park, Inc.’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Admission, Set One, are GRANTED.

Defendants shall provide responses without objections with 10 days of this order. Sanctions are imposed in the reduced amount of $1,000 for each motion at issue.

Moving Party to give notice.

The following motions come for hearing before the court:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, propounded on Defendant 2202 East Anderson Street, LLC;

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, propounded on Defendant Zion Vanounou;

3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, propounded on Defendant 2202 East Anderson Street, LLC;

4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, propounded on Defendant Zion Vanounou;

As a preliminary matter, the court notes that although these moving papers are brought for two discovery devices, Plaintiff has paid two filing fees for each one, and reserved separate hearings. A motion must be brought separately against each party and discovery method at issue. The instant motions should have been filed as four separate motions. Instead, Plaintiff filed only two motions. Nevertheless, as the filing fees have been paid, there is no jurisdictional issue. (Hu v. Silgan Containers Corp. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1269.)

On June 24, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Admission, Set One, on 2202 and Vanounou. (Colorado Decls. ¶ 2, Exs. 1, 2.) Former defense counsel, Jacob Reich, served responses on July 26, 2020. (Id. ¶ 3, Exhs. 3, 4.) Plaintiff’s counsel sent respective meet and confer letters to 2202 and Vanounou on August 12, 2019. (Id. ¶ 4, Exhs. 5, 6.) Reich did not respond to the letters, and informed Plaintiff’s counsel that he had moved to be relieved as counsel of record for Defendants. (Id. ¶ 6.) Reich was relieved as counsel on September 11, 2019. (Id. ¶ 8.) On October, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Vanounou, who is the principal for 2202, and a further email on October 21, 2019, to meet and confer regarding the discovery. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 10.) Vanounou did not respond. (Id.)

In their initial responses to the interrogatories, Defendants responded with incomplete responses or unsubstantiated objections. For example, in response to the Form Interrogatory requesting the name of the LLC, all other names used, the date of filing, the address of business, and whether it is qualified to do business in California, Defendants responded merely “[y]es.” (Sep. Statement FROG 3.3.) Alternatively, Defendants raised the same objection to the FROG taking issue with the definition of the term “incident,” or objected that exhibits referenced in the complaint were not attached thereto. (See e.g. Resp to FROG 12.1.) In response to the RFA, Defendants raised objections on the basis that responding Defendant could either not locate a necessary file, or that the RFA requested a conclusion of law, and not an admission of fact.

On August 13, 2020, ten months after this motion was brought, Defendants filed a joint notice of non-opposition to the motions. Newly retained counsel, Elliot Tiomkin, declares that he called opposing counsel on December 31, 2019, and offered to provide complete discovery responses. (Tiomkin Decl. ¶ 13.) Between September 11, 2019, until December 2019, Vanounou was without counsel. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 12.) Tiomkin declares that all discovery responses have now been provided without objection. (Id. ¶ 14.)

In reply, Plaintiff contends that Defendants did not serve an opposition. Although technically correct, the non-opposition filed on August 13, 2020, includes a proof of service reflecting service by electronic service on August 11, 2020. Defense counsel engages in a belabored argument that if the non-opposition was properly served, “[Tiomkin] would have a copy of the email by which he served the Opposition. No such email exists because Mr. Tiomkin did not serve the Opposition.” (Reply 3:9-10.) Defense counsel then attacks the sufficiency of the proof of service because it does not contain “the exact title of the document served.” Defense then repeats his argument as to service of the various documents upon Defendants’ former counsel, Reich, and argues that “[i]t is absolutely untrue that Defendants have responded in full to the Form Interrogatories and Requests for Admission. If that were true, they would have submitted to the Court copies of the ‘full’ responses.” (Reply 6:6-8.)

On August 21, 2020, Tiomkin filed a supplemental declaration, which attaches copies of the responses served on Plaintiff on March 9, 2020. (Supp. Tiomkin Decl. Exh. A.) First, these responses are not made without objection as declared by Tiomkin on August 13, 2020. Virtually every response to FROG are prefaced with an objection. The same is true for the responses to RFA. Additionally, it is unclear why Tiomkin failed to include these critical responses in his notice of non-opposition.

Whether or not Vanounou was represented by counsel, he is not relieved of his duty to respond to discovery requests. Nevertheless, the reply is notable in that it seems to conclude that time stopped running on October 28, 2019, when the extension deadline supposedly granted to Vanounou expired. Plaintiff’s August 12, 2020, reply papers make no mention whatsoever of the March 9, 2020, responses.

In sum, the moving, non-opposition, reply and supplemental declaration papers pertaining to this issue demonstrate a failure to communicate on both sides. Despite proofs of service being filed in this matter, both sides contend that hundreds of pages of discovery and multiple emails have vanished into thin air. Nevertheless, as Defendants failed to timely respond to the discovery, raised unsubstantiated objections, and failed to serve responses without objections as declared, Plaintiff’s motions shall be granted. Additionally. Defendant’s counsel offers no explanation as to why he waited until March 19, 2020, to serve responses “without objections,” or why he waited until August 21, 2020, in an impermissible supplemental filing, to bring these responses to the attention of the court.

Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel Further Responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Admission, Set One, are GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is grossly excessive. Sanctions are awarded in the total reduced amount of $4000 for these straight forward and duplicated discovery devices$2000 against each Defendant for the respective motions.

Defendants shall provide responses without objections within 10 days of this order.

Case Number: VC067151    Hearing Date: February 06, 2020    Dept: SEC

EMORY PARK, INC. v. 2202 EAST ANDERSON STREET, LLC

CASE NO.: VC067151

HEARING: 02/06/2020

#8

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff EMORY PARK, INC.’s unopposed Motion to Compel Defendant 2202 EAST ANDERSON STREET, LLC’s Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one) is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give Notice.

On January 30, 2020, Defendants 2202 EAST ANDERSON STREET, LLC and ZION VANOUNOU filed their “Non-Opposition” to Plaintiff’s instant Motion. Defendants indicate that responsive documents have since been produced since the Motion was filed. They seemingly do not oppose the granting of the Motion, but do contest the issuance of sanctions. The Court is aware that the instant discovery Motion was filed after Defendants’ former counsel withdrew from the case, and before Defendants’ current counsel was retained.

Although Defendants indicate that responsive documents have already been produced, Defendants’ further responses and production are not currently before the Court—Defendants did not provide the Court with a Separate Statement in Opposition to the Motion. Therefore, the Court cannot make a determination as to whether Defendants’ further production is adequate.

The unopposed Motion to Compel Further is granted. Defendant 2202 EAST ANDERSON STREET, LLC is ORDERED to provide further verified responses and documents to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (set one) no later than 30 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended pursuant to agreement of the parties.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanction is denied. Given Defendants’ efforts to retain new counsel after their former counsel withdrew, and Defendants’ seeming willingness to produce responsive documents, the Court finds that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. Counsel are encouraged to make sufficient efforts to informally resolve their discovery disputes.