Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/27/2019 at 02:07:34 (UTC).

FAITH MORGAN VS SHIRLEY SCHYMAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/23/2017 FAITH MORGAN filed a Property - Other Eviction lawsuit against SHIRLEY SCHYMAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RICHARD E. RICO and BARBARA M. SCHEPER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6198

  • Filing Date:

    06/23/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Eviction

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

RICHARD E. RICO

BARBARA M. SCHEPER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

MORGAN FAITH

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 25

TDI PROPERTIES INC.

SCHYMAN SHIRLEY AN INDIVIDUAL

AUGUSTA DAVID

LEVIN DANNY

GALINDO SARA

SCHYMAN SHIRLEY TRUSTEE OF THE SCHYMAN

SCHYMAN SHIRLEY

Not Classified By Court

AGUSTA DAVID

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

SARA B. POSTER

MANUKYAN AREN

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

SHAPIRO MARC S. ESQ.

MILLER DAVID S. ESQ.

MOSS ROBERT M. ESQ.

AUGUSTA DAVID

 

Court Documents

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. WRONGFUL EVICTION; ETC

6/23/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. WRONGFUL EVICTION; ETC

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. WRONGFUL EVICTION; ETC

9/1/2017: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. WRONGFUL EVICTION; ETC

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DAVID AUGUSTA?S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF FAITH MORGAN TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

6/19/2018: SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DAVID AUGUSTA?S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF FAITH MORGAN TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF FAITH MORGAN TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE); ETC.

7/6/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF FAITH MORGAN TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE); ETC.

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF FAITH MORGAN TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; ETC.

8/8/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF FAITH MORGAN TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; ETC.

Minute Order

8/24/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

10/25/2018: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Ruling

11/9/2018: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

12/5/2018: Minute Order

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

2/1/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Request for Judicial Notice

2/1/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

2/1/2019: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Minute Order

4/9/2019: Minute Order

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

12/22/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

Minute Order

10/16/2017: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

8/23/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

9/1/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

Unknown

9/28/2017: Unknown

118 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2019
  • Notice (of Continuance of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set 2); Filed by Shirley, Schyman (Defendant); TDI Properties, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Schyman, Shirley, trustee of the Schyman (Defendant); TDI Properties, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
216 More Docket Entries
  • 09/01/2017
  • SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2017
  • FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. WRONGFUL EVICTION; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/01/2017
  • First Amended Complaint; Filed by Faith Morgan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2017
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2017
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Faith Morgan (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. WRONGFUL EVICTION; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC666198    Hearing Date: December 14, 2020    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

FAITH MORGAN

vs.

SHIRLEY SCHYMAN, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.: BC666198

Hearing Date: December 14, 2020

Defendants’ motion for leave of Court to conduct a mental examination of Plaintiff is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Faith Morgan (Plaintiff) initiated this lawsuit against Defendants Shirley Schyman, individually and as trustee of the Schyman Schyman); TDI Properties, Inc. (TDI); David Augusta; Sara Galindo; and Danny Levin. Plaintiff is a former tenant at 545 N. Hayworth Ave., Los Angeles, CA, an apartment building allegedly owned and managed by Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a pattern of harassing conduct, including multiple break-ins, theft, and defamatory statements that resulted in her unlawful eviction from the property. Plaintiff’s operative First Amended complaint sets forth 18 causes of action including, inter alia, wrongful eviction, breach of contract, IIED, and conversion.

Defendants Shirley Schyman and TDI Properties, Inc. (collectively, Defendants) now move for leave to conduct a mental examination of Plaintiff, pursuant to CCP sections 2032.310 and 2032.320.

Legal Standard

CCP section 2032.210 provides:

(a) If any party desires to obtain discovery by a physical examination other than that described in Article 2 (commencing with Section 2032.210 ), or by a mental examination, the party shall obtain leave of court.

(b) A motion for an examination under subdivision (a) shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, scope, and nature of the examination, as well as the identity and the specialty, if any, of the person or persons who will perform the examination. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040 .

(c) Notice of the motion shall be served on the person to be examined and on all parties who have appeared in the action.

Discussion

Defendants move to conduct a medical examination of Plaintiff with the following medical professional:

Anthony E. Reading B.S., M.Phil., PhD.

Psychologist licensed by the State of California, Qualified Medical Examiner, and Clinical Professor of Psychology

462 N. Linden Drive, Suite 445

Beverly Hills, CA 90212

Date of Examination: A mutually agreeable date within 45 days of order;

Time of Examination: A mutually agreeable time

Defendants’ motion is code-complaint. (CCP § 2031.210, subds. (a)-(c).) Plaintiff did not oppose Defendants’ motion.

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for leave to conduct a medical examination of Plaintiff is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated: , 2020

Hon. Jon R. Takasugi Judge of the Superior Court

 

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  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. If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. 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.

Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances. Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk. The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.

Case Number: BC666198    Hearing Date: September 15, 2020    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

FAITH MORGAN

vs.

SHIRLEY SCHYMAN, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.: BC666198

Hearing Date: September 15, 2020

Moving Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Moving Defendants shall serve a new notice of deposition and Goalwin

Plaintiff Faith Morgan (Plaintiff) initiated this lawsuit against Defendants Shirley Schyman, individually and as trustee of the Schyman Schyman); TDI Properties, Inc. (TDI); David Augusta; Sara Galindo; and Danny Levin. Plaintiff is a former tenant at 545 N. Hayworth Ave., Los Angeles, CA, an apartment building allegedly owned and managed by Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a pattern of harassing conduct, including multiple break-ins, theft, and defamatory statements that resulted in her unlawful eviction from the property. Plaintiff’s operative First Amended complaint sets forth 18 causes of action including, inter alia, wrongful eviction, breach of contract, IIED, and conversion.

Now, Defendants Schyman Goalwin, Ph.D. GoalwinGoalwin

On July 27, 2020, the instant motion came before the Court, but was continued. Plaintiff’s counsel anticipated that he would be substituted out by Plaintiff, and the Parties agreed to further confer regarding the status of the deposition.

No additional related papers have been filed since this motion was last heard by the Court.

The motion is unopposed.

Legal Standard

Moving Defendants assert that Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480 governs this motion, but the Court disagrees. This is a motion to compel deposition by a deponent who failed to appear for deposition; this is not a motion to compel further deposition answers from a deponent who already sat for deposition. Section 2025.480 applies when the deponent has already sat for deposition, and is roughly analogous to a motion to compel further written discovery responses. Here, Goalwin

Section 1987.1 provides that “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness . . . the court, upon motion reasonably made … or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order … directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”

“Unlike the motion against a party deponent . . . , the motion to compel a¿nonparty’s¿attendance does not require the deponent to serve objections; the parties and their attorneys need not confer; and monetary sanctions against the losing party are not mandatory.” (Cal. Judges Benchbook

Discussion

On October 7, 2019, Defendants served Goalwin Goalwin’s Perelshteyn Perelshteyn Goalwin Goalwin Perelshteyn

Personal service of a deposition subpoena obligates any resident of California to appear, testify and produce whatever documents or things are specified in the subpoena, and to appear in any proceedings to enforce discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (a)-(c).) Here, Goalwin

The Court notes that Moving Defendants’ meet-and-confer efforts consist of a single letter sent to Goalwin Perelshteyn Exh. E.) However, under CCP section 2020.510, subdivision (b), a records and testimony subpoena “need not be accompanied by an affidavit or declaration showing good cause for the production.” (Rutter Guide, Ch. 6, 8:559). Given Goalwin’s failure to oppose this motion, or submit objections to the subject subpoena, the Court has no basis to conclude that Moving Defendants’ document request is not “reasonably made.” (CCP § 1987.1.) Accordingly, Moving Defendants are entitled to an order compelling Goalwin to produce the requested documents.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Moving Defendants shall serve a new notice of deposition and Goalwin

It is so ordered.

Dated: September , 2020

Hon. Jon R. Takasugi Judge of the Superior Court

 

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  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. If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. 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.

Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances. Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk. The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.

Case Number: BC666198    Hearing Date: July 27, 2020    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

FAITH MORGAN

vs.

SHIRLEY SCHYMAN, et al.

Defendants.

Case No.: BC666198

Hearing Date: July 27, 2020

Defendants'  motion is GRANTED. Moving Defendants shall serve a new notice of deposition and Goalwin

Plaintiff Faith Morgan (Plaintiff) initiated this lawsuit against Defendants Shirley Schyman, individually and as trustee of the Schyman Schyman); TDI Properties, Inc. (TDI); David Augusta; Sara Galindo; and Danny Levin. Plaintiff is a former tenant at 545 N. Hayworth Ave., Los Angeles, CA, an apartment building allegedly owned and managed by Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a pattern of harassing conduct, including multiple break-ins, theft, and defamatory statements that resulted in her unlawful eviction from the property. Plaintiff’s operative First Amended complaint sets forth 18 causes of action including, inter alia, wrongful eviction, breach of contract, IIED, and conversion.

Now, Defendants Schyman Goalwin, Ph.D. (Goalwin)Goalwin

The motion is unopposed.

Legal Standard

Moving Defendants assert that Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480 governs this motion, but the Court disagrees. This is a motion to compel deposition by a deponent who failed to appear for deposition; this is not a motion to compel further deposition answers from a deponent who already sat for deposition. Section 2025.480 applies when the deponent has already sat for deposition, and is roughly analogous to a motion to compel further written discovery responses. Here, Goalwin

Section 1987.1 provides that “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness . . . the court, upon motion reasonably made … or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order … directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”

“Unlike the motion against a party deponent . . . , the motion to compel a¿nonparty’s¿attendance does not require the deponent to serve objections; the parties and their attorneys need not confer; and monetary sanctions against the losing party are not mandatory.” (Cal. Judges Benchbook

Discussion

On October 7, 2019, Defendants served Goalwin Goalwin’s Perelshteyn Perelshteyn Goalwin Goalwin Perelshteyn

Personal service of a deposition subpoena obligates any resident of California to appear, testify and produce whatever documents or things are specified in the subpoena, and to appear in any proceedings to enforce discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (a)-(c).) Here, Goalwin

The Court notes that Moving Defendants’ meet-and-confer efforts consist of a single letter sent to Goalwin Perelshteyn Exh. E.) However, under CCP section 2020.510, subdivision (b), a records and testimony subpoena “need not be accompanied by an affidavit or declaration showing good cause for the production.” (Rutter Guide, Ch. 6, 8:559). Given Goalwin’s failure to oppose this motion, or submit objections to the subject subpoena, the Court has no basis to conclude that Moving Defendants’ document request is not “reasonably made.” (CCP § 1987.1.) Accordingly, Moving Defendants are entitled to an order compelling Goalwin to produce the requested documents.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Moving Defendants shall serve a new notice of deposition and Goalwin

It is so ordered.

Dated: , 2020

Hon. Jon R. Takasugi

Judge of the Superior Court

 

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  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. If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. 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.

Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances. Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk. The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where TDI PROPERTIES INC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer SHAPIRO MARC S

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MOSS ROBERT M

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MILLER DAVID SCOTT