This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/15/2020 at 16:44:22 (UTC).

FAYE PIERSON, ET AL. VS. JESUS DURAZO, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 01/02/2018 FAYE PIERSON filed an Other lawsuit against JESUS DURAZO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WILLIAM D. STEWART. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7682

  • Filing Date:

    01/02/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

WILLIAM D. STEWART

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

GREER JAMES B.

PIERSON FAYE

Defendants

DURAZO JESUS

GREER REID

REID GREER LIVING TRUST

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

CORDIER DAVID A. LAW OFFICES OF

CORDIER DAVID ALLEN

BERRY GRAHAM EDWARD

Defendant Attorneys

TULANE M. PETERSON

PETERSON TULANE M.

PETERSON TULANE MEREDITH

 

Court Documents

Request for Judicial Notice

3/12/2020: Request for Judicial Notice

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING UPON NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND SUBSTITUTE ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

12/2/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING UPON NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND SUBSTITUTE ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Complaint filed-Summons Issued

1/2/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Complaint filed-Summons Issued

Answer

3/19/2018: Answer

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE SETTING OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION SUBPOEN...)

7/2/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE SETTING OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION SUBPOEN...)

Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION SUBPOENA

6/24/2020: Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION SUBPOENA

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TURN OVER CLIENT FILE

6/17/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TURN OVER CLIENT FILE

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION SUBPOENA

6/17/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION SUBPOENA

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF HEARING DATE) OF 04/29/2020

4/29/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF HEARING DATE) OF 04/29/2020

Notice of Ruling

12/9/2019: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FILED BY PLTFF FA...)

1/10/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FILED BY PLTFF FA...)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF HEARINGS) OF 03/20/2020

3/20/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF HEARINGS) OF 03/20/2020

Motion to Disqualify Counsel

11/21/2019: Motion to Disqualify Counsel

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

2/25/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DURAZO'S MOTION TO DISMISS REID GREER

4/4/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DURAZO'S MOTION TO DISMISS REID GREER

Summons

1/2/2018: Summons

Request For Copies

2/2/2018: Request For Copies

51 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/27/2020
  • Hearing10/27/2020 at 10:30 AM in Department A at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2020
  • Hearing08/28/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department A at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502; Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition Subpoena for Business Records Filed by Deft Jesus Durazo, et. al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketMotion to Compel (FIRST AMENDED - DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS;); Filed by Jesus Durazo (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2020
  • Docketat 3:48 PM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order re SETTING OF Motion to Compel DEPOSITION SUBPOEN...) of 07/02/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/02/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order re SETTING OF Motion to Compel DEPOSITION SUBPOEN...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2020
  • DocketMotion to Compel (DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS); Filed by Jesus Durazo (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Deposition Subpoena and for Sanctions Filed by Deft Jesus Durazo) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Order (to Release all Client Materials and Property Filed by Pltff Faye Pierson, James Greer et. al.) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
77 More Docket Entries
  • 03/19/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service (OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Matter continued) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2018-03-19 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Jesus Durazo (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2018
  • DocketRequest For Copies

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2018
  • DocketRequest For Copies

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2018
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2018
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Faye Pierson (Plaintiff); James B. Greer (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Faye Pierson (Plaintiff); James B. Greer (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Faye Pierson (Plaintiff); James B. Greer (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC067682    Hearing Date: June 30, 2020    Dept: A

The Superior Court is re-opening under “Here for You | Safe for You” Conditions and Orders

Counsel are urged to use remote appearance technology such as Court Call or LACourtConnect )(when it becomes available on August 6 for Branch Civil)

If it is indispensable for counsel to be present in court, face masks are mandated (unless a court orders otherwise) and social distancing rules are in force.

Pierson v Durazo

Motion to Compel; Motion for Order to Turn Over

Calendar:

01

Case No.:

EC067682

Hearing Date:

June 30, 2020

Action Filed:

January 2, 2018

Trial Date:

N/A

Motion to Compel

MP:

Jesus Durazo

RP:

David A. Cordier

Motion for Order to Turn Over

MP:

Faye Pierson; James Greer

RP:

David A. Cordier

ALLEGATIONS:

Fate M. Pierson and James B. Greer ("Plaintiffs") allege they and Reid Greer ("Decedent") orally agreed to allow Decedent to reside in the property of 901 W. Duarte Road, Arcadia, CA ("Property") rent-free in exchange for his agreement to pay all bills and taxes, with the Property's title to vest to the last remaining child still alive. Plaintiffs allege that Decedent transferred the property, in breach of this agreement, to the Reid Greer trust, which Plaintiffs contend was the result of financial elder abuse by Jesus Durazo ("Defendant"). Decedent died on or about November 15, 2017, resulting in the Reid Greer Living Trust dated December 30, 2015 ("Greer Trust") becoming irrevocable, with Durazo as the successor trustee.

The Complaint was filed on January 02, 2018, alleging eight (8) causes of action for (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Elder Abuse, (3) Intentional Interference with Expected Inheritance, (4) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, (5) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations, (6) Breach of Contract, and (7) Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage.

PRESENTATION:

Motion to Compel

The motion to compel was filed on March 13, 2020. The original hearing date was April 3, 2020. Opposition was filed on June 17, 2020, and a reply was filed on June 24, 2020, which is one day after the reply brief due date of June 23, 2020.

On March 20, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and pursuant to the March 17, 2020, Administrative Order of the Presiding Judge, the Court continued the instant motion to April 24, 2020. Counsel for Plaintiff was informed by mail and directed to give notice.

On April 1, 2020, and in response to the continuing pandemic conditions, the Court continued the matter again, setting the motion for hearing on May 29, 2020. Counsel for Plaintiff was informed and directed to give notice, and a copy of the minute order was mailed to counsel.

On April 29, 2020, and in response to the continuing pandemic conditions, the Court continued the matter again, setting the motion for hearing on June 30, 2020. Counsel for Plaintiff was informed and directed to give notice, and a copy of the minute order was mailed to counsel.

Motion for Order to Turn Over

On January 10, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for David A. Cordier ("Cordier") to be relieved as counsel and denied Plaintiffs' motion to disqualify Cordier.

The motion for order to turn over was filed on March 12, 2020. The original hearing date for the motion was April 3, 2020. Opposition was filed on June 17, 2020, and a reply was filed on June 24, 2020, which is one day after the reply brief due date of June 23, 2020.

On March 20, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and pursuant to the March 17, 2020, Administrative Order of the Presiding Judge, the Court continued the instant motion to April 24, 2020. Counsel for Plaintiff was informed by mail and directed to give notice.

On April 1, 2020, and in response to the continuing pandemic conditions, the Court continued the matter again, setting the motion for hearing on May 29, 2020. Counsel for Plaintiff was informed and directed to give notice, and a copy of the minute order was mailed to counsel.

On April 29, 2020, and in response to the continuing pandemic conditions, the Court continued the matter again, setting the motion for hearing on June 30, 2020. Counsel for Plaintiff was informed and directed to give notice, and a copy of the minute order was mailed to counsel.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Motion to Compel

Defendant moves to compel compliance with a deposition subpoena served upon David A. Cordier on January 10, 2020, and requests sanctions against Cordier.

Motion for Order to Turn Over

Plaintiffs move for an order that Cordier turn over client files to Graham E. Berry.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel

Standard of Review

Pursuant to CCP § 2025.450, if after service of a deposition notice a party to the action, without having served a valid objection, fails to appear for examination, or proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document. (Code Civ. Proc., §2025.450, subd. (a).) In order to bring a motion to compel the deposition of a party to the action, the motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition, a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)

Meet and Confer

The Court credits the Declaration of Peterson and finds that Defendant has met meet and confer requirements pursuant to CCP § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)

Merits

"Any consumer whose personal records are sought by a subpoena duces tecum and who is a party to the civil action in which this subpoena duces tecum is served may, prior to the date for production, bring a motion under Section 1987.1 to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum. . . . Any other consumer or nonparty whose personal records are sought by a subpoena duces tecum may, prior to the date of production, serve on the subpoenaing party, the witness, and the deposition officer, a written objection that cites the specific grounds on which production of the personal records should be prohibited. . . . The party requesting a consumer’s personal records may bring a motion under Section 1987.1 to enforce the subpoena within 20 days of service of the written objection. The motion shall be accompanied by a declaration showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution of the dispute between the party requesting the personal records and the consumer or the consumer’s attorney." (Cal Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3, subd. (g).)

"A written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail or electronic service at an address or electronic service address specified on the deposition record." (Cal Rules of Court, Rule 3.1346.)

"A party or other person indicates that the party or other person agrees to accept electronic service by: (A)  Serving a notice on all parties and other persons that the party or other person accepts electronic service and filing the notice with the court. The notice must include the electronic service address at which the party or other person agrees to accept service; or (B)  Manifesting affirmative consent through electronic means with the court or the court's electronic filing service provider, and concurrently providing the party's electronic service address with that consent for the purpose of receiving electronic service. . . ." (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.251, subd. (b).)

Defendant argues that the subpoena served upon Cordier is valid and gave proper notice. Defendant contends that Cordier's proper service objection pursuant to CCP § 1985(b), attorney-client privilege objection, work product privilege objection, and relevance objection are all invalid. Defendants further argue that Cordier objected in bad faith and request sanctions.

Cordier argues (1) the instant motion was not timely because it was not served within 20 days of the written objection pursuant to CCP § 1985.3(g), (2) the instant motion was not personally served on the deponent (Cordier), (3) the notice to consumer fails to identify the consumer whose records are being sought, (4) Defendant's counsel failed to fulfill meet and confer obligations, and (5) Defendant failed to attach a separate statement of the discovery requests and responses pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345. Defendant replies that (1) Cordier has no authority to object to an allegedly untimely motion under CCP § 1985.3(g) because he is not "[a]ny consumer whose personal records are sought" or "[a]ny other consumer or nonparty whose personal records are sought", but rather a "witness" whose business, nor personal, records are being sought, (2) Cordier was personally served with the subpoena and notice to consumer on January 10, 2020 as the attorney of record for Plaintiffs, (3) Cordier's notice to consumer argument is meritless because the notice to consumer identified the specific records sought and the specific consumer, (4) Defendant's counsel made reasonable and good faith efforts to resolve the issues prior to bringing the motion, and (5) as argued above, Cordier has no authority to object as he is not a consumer or nonparty whose personal records are being sought, pursuant to CCP § 1985.3(g).

The Court finds that (1) & (5) Cordier may not object pursuant to CCP § 1985.3(g) because his personal records are not being sought by subpoena in the instant motion and he is thus not a "consumer" or "nonparty" referenced in the statute, (3) Defendant's notice to consumer and subpoena adequately identified both the consumer and the specific records sought, and (4) Defendant's counsel made adequate meet and confer efforts.

The Court finds that (2) Defendant failed to present facts supporting its argument that Cordier was personally served with the subpoena and notice to consumer on January 10, 2020. (Reply, ¶ 20.)

Accordingly, the Motion to Compel will be denied, and associated sanctions will also be denied.

Motion for Order to Turn Over

Standard of Review

Pursuant to the Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(e)(1): "Upon the termination of a representation for any reason: subject to any applicable protective order, non-disclosure agreement, statute or regulation, the lawyer promptly shall release to the client, at the request of the client, all client materials and property. 'Client materials and property' includes correspondence, pleadings, deposition transcripts, experts’ reports and other writings, exhibits, and physical evidence, whether in tangible, electronic or other form, and other items reasonably necessary to the client’s representation, whether the client has paid for them or not. . . ."

Merits

"Upon the termination of a representation for any reason: (1) subject to any applicable protective order, non-disclosure agreement, statute or regulation, the lawyer promptly shall release to the client, at the request of the client, all client materials and property. “Client materials and property” includes correspondence, pleadings, deposition transcripts, experts’ reports and other writings,* exhibits, and physical evidence, whether in tangible, electronic or other form, and other items reasonably* necessary to the client’s representation, whether the client has paid for them or not. . . ." (Cal. Rules of Prof'l conduct, Rule 1.16(e)(1).)

Plaintiffs argue that Cordier has failed to turn over client papers for six months and violated the Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(e)(1) by failing to do so. Cordier argues that the motion is moot because he turned over the complete file to Plaintiffs' counsel on March 27, 2020, excluding documents relating to Plaintiffs' prior motion, and the retainer agreement between Cordier and Plaintiffs. Cordier contends he is willing to turn over a copy of the attorney-client agreement if Plaintiffs' counsel provides a waiver of attorney client privilege from each client. Plaintiffs argues in the reply brief that the motion is not mooted because Cordier has not turned over a copy of the attorney-client agreement, and that Plaintiffs are not required to waive attorney-client privilege in order to have a copy of such agreement turned over to his new counsel.

The Court finds that Cordier has failed to cite authority to support his argument that he may refuse to transfer a copy of his former client's attorney-client agreement unless his former client waives attorney-client privilege. Absent a good faith basis for the modification or extension of an existing law, litigants are generally prohibited from asserting a position in litigation without authority. (See, e.g., In re Estate of Randall (1924) 194 Cal. 725, 728-29 (“Contentions supported neither by argument nor by citation of authority are deemed to be without foundation, and to have been abandoned.”)(internal quotations omitted); California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.1.) Additionally, the citation to general propositions of law, general statutes and rules, or the assertion that a legal principle applies, without analysis or authority, provides no basis for the court to analyze or adopt the request of the party, and requires no substantive analysis by the court. (See Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank (2013) 213 Cal. App. 4th 545, 571-72 (“When a point is asserted without argument and authority for the proposition, ‘it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court.’”); Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1997) 52 Cal. App. 4th 820, 850 (“In a page and a half, and with citation to but one case for the general proposition the conduct was despicable, [Cross-Appellant appeals] from the granting of the directed verdict motion. This cursory treatment requires no discussion by us.”); Atchley v. City of Fresno (1984) 151 Cal. App. 3d 635, 647 (“Where a point is merely asserted by appellant's counsel without any argument of or authority for the proposition, it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court.”).) Also, Civil Code 1799.200 et seq. requires a copy be made available to any consumer.

Accordingly, the Court will grant the Motion to Turn Over.

RULING: below,

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Defendant's Motion to Compel and Plaintiffs' Motion for Order to Turn Over came on regularly for hearing on June 30, 2020, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION TO COMPEL IS DENIED

THE MOTION FOR ORDER TO TURN OVER IS GRANTED

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE