Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/09/2021 at 19:28:39 (UTC).

GARRETT D. LEEVERS VS NETWORK DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.

Case Summary

On 12/20/2017 GARRETT D LEEVERS filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against NETWORK DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC. 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, GERALD ROSENBERG and MARK H. EPSTEIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8570

  • Filing Date:

    12/20/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MARC D. GROSS

GERALD ROSENBERG

MARK H. EPSTEIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

EEVERS GARRETT D.

LEEVERS GARRETT D.

LITICOURT CORPORATION

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

NETWORK DEPOSITION SERVICES INC.

YOSSEFI NURIEL

YOSSEFI URIEL

LITICOURT CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

HART WILLIAM R.

FRIEDMAN MICHAEL ELLIOT

FRIEDMAN STEVEN RICHARD

FRIEDMAN STEVEN R.

Defendant Attorneys

FISHER HOWARD S. LAW OFFICES OF

FISHER HOWARD

FISHER HOWARD SCOTT

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

BEHLE JR ROGER N

 

Court Documents

Notice - NOTICE OF CHANGE IN HEARING DATE FOR MOTION BY DEFENDANT NETWORK DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.

8/7/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF CHANGE IN HEARING DATE FOR MOTION BY DEFENDANT NETWORK DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.

Notice of Motion - NOTICE OF CHANGE IN HEARING DATE FOR MOTION BY DEFENDANT NETWORK DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC. TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF GARRETT D. LEEVER TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE FORM INTERROGATO

11/12/2019: Notice of Motion - NOTICE OF CHANGE IN HEARING DATE FOR MOTION BY DEFENDANT NETWORK DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC. TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF GARRETT D. LEEVER TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO THE FORM INTERROGATO

Declaration - DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. FRIEDMAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION AND NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY DEFENDANTS NETWORK DEPOSITION SERVICES, URIEL YOSSEFI AND NURIEL Y

12/3/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF MICHAEL E. FRIEDMAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION AND NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY DEFENDANTS NETWORK DEPOSITION SERVICES, URIEL YOSSEFI AND NURIEL Y

Declaration - DECLARATION OF G. LEEVERS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT'S COMPLIANCE CORPORATE FORMALITIES AND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF MANDATING AN ANNUAL MEETING TAKE PLACE

12/30/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF G. LEEVERS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT'S COMPLIANCE CORPORATE FORMALITIES AND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF MANDATING AN ANNUAL MEETING TAKE PLACE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE; INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))

9/11/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE; INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))

Ex Parte Application - DEFENDANT NETWORK DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR (A) CLARIFICATION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RECONSIDERATION OF PARAGRAPH 7 THE COURTS DECEMBER 9, 2020 ORDE

12/11/2020: Ex Parte Application - DEFENDANT NETWORK DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR (A) CLARIFICATION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RECONSIDERATION OF PARAGRAPH 7 THE COURTS DECEMBER 9, 2020 ORDE

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: First Amended Complaint

4/6/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: First Amended Complaint

Other - - Other - Civil Deposit

5/7/2018: Other - - Other - Civil Deposit

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-05-09 00:00:00

5/9/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-05-09 00:00:00

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Proof-Service/Summons

6/20/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Proof-Service/Summons

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

7/17/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Opposition - To Motion to Strike

8/8/2018: Opposition - To Motion to Strike

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-08-21 00:00:00

8/21/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-08-21 00:00:00

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

12/21/2018: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

12/21/2018: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

3/29/2019: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)

5/3/2019: Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)

Notice of Motion - PLAINTIFF'S AND CROSS-DEFENDANT'S AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE CROSS-COMPLAINT

5/14/2019: Notice of Motion - PLAINTIFF'S AND CROSS-DEFENDANT'S AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE CROSS-COMPLAINT

186 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/14/2021
  • Hearing06/14/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department M at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2021
  • Hearing06/07/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department M at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/03/2021
  • Hearing03/03/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department M at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (DECLARATION OF URIEL YOSSEFI); Filed by NETWORK DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/18/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (DECLARATION OF NURIEL YOSSEFI ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ON BEHALF OF NETWORK DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.); Filed by NETWORK DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (FOR (A) CLARIFICATION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RECONSIDERATION OF PARAGRAPH 7 THE COURT?S DECEMBER 9, 2020 ORDER AND (B) FOR AN ORDER) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2020
  • DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by Garrett D. Leevers (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application FOR (A) CLARIFICATION, OR IN ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2020
  • DocketDEFENDANT NETWORK DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC.?S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR (A) CLARIFICATION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RECONSIDERATION OF PARAGRAPH 7 THE COURT?S DECEMBER 9, 2020 ORDER AND (B) FOR AN ORDER; Filed by NETWORK DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2020
  • DocketDECLARATION OF JORDAN LIEBMAN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS? EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR (A) CLARIFICATION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RECONSIDERATION OF PARAGRAPH 7 THE COURT?S DECEMBER 9, 2020 ORDER AND (B) FOR; Filed by NETWORK DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
288 More Docket Entries
  • 04/06/2018
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketStatement-Case Management; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by GARRETT D. LEEVERS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by GARRETT D. LEEVERS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by GARRETT D. LEEVERS (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2017
  • DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2017
  • DocketComplaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC128570    Hearing Date: November 03, 2020    Dept: M

CASE NAME: Garrett D. Leevers v. Network Deposition Services, Inc.

CASE NO. SC128570

MOTION: Plaintiff and Cross-Defendants’ Demurrer to First Amended Cross-Complaint with Motion to Strike

DATE: 11/3/2020

BACKGROUND

On November 18, 2019 Network Deposition Services, Inc., Uriel Yossefi and Nuriel Yossefi (“Defendants and Cross-Complainants”) filed their first amended cross-complaint against Garrett D. Leevers and LitiCourt Corp and Roes 1 through 50 (“Cross-Defendants”). The first amended cross-complaint (FACC) alleges ten causes of action against Garrett D. Leevers and LitiCourt Corp for: (1) breach of oral contract; (2) conversion; (3) negligence; (4) intentional interference with prospective economic relationship; (5) negligent interference with contractual relationship; (6) breach of fiduciary duty; (7) extortion; (8) misappropriation of trade secrets; (9) trade libel; and (10) unfair business practices

On September 4, 2020, Cross-Defendants filed a demurrer with a motion to strike. On October 21, 2020, Cross-Complaints filed an opposition to the motion to strike but did not file an opposition to the demurrer. On October 27, 2020, Cross-Defendants filed a notice of a non-opposition to the demurrer as well as a reply in support of the motion to strike.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Before filing a demurrer . . . the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading . . . for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41.)

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint alleges facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (CCP § 430.10(e); Young v. Gannon (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 209, 220. The court “may consider all material facts pleaded in the complaint and those arising by reasonable implication therefrom; it may not consider contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. (Id. [citing Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634, 638; Montclair Parkowners Assn. v. City of Montclair (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 784, 790.)) The court treats all facts alleged in the complaint to be true. (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 732.) The court can also “consider the facts appearing in exhibits attached to the complaint.” (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733 [citing Dodd v. Citizens Bank of Costa Mesa (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1624, 1627].)

When considering demurrers, courts “are required to construe the complaint liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated, given the assumed truth of the facts pleaded.” (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733 [citing Rogoff v. Grabowski (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 624, 628].)

A demurrer on a complaint or cross-complaint may be filed within 30 days of service of the complaint or cross-complaint. (CCP 430.40(a).) An untimely demurrer may be considered by the court in its discretion. (Jackson v. Doe (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 742, 750.)

Motions to strike are used to reach defects or objections to pleadings that are not challengeable by demurrer (i.e., words, phrases, prayer for damages, etc.). (See CCP §§ 435, 436 & 437.) A motion to strike must be filed within the time allowed to respond (e.g., 30 days after service of the complaint or cross-complaint) unless extended by court order. Where there are grounds for a demurrer and a motion to strike, they must be filed together and noticed for hearing at the same time. (CCP § 435(b)(3) and CRC Rule 329.) A motion to strike can be made to strike irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading or to strike any pleading or part thereof not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or order of the court. (CCP § 436.) Allegations barred by the statute of limitations are properly subject to a motion to strike.

ANALYSIS

A. Meet and Confer

The Court finds that the parties satisfied the meet and confer requirements. (See generally Friedman Decl.)

B. Timeliness

The demurrer is timely. Cross-Defendants note in their declaration that Cross-Complainants extended Cross-Defendants time to file a demurrer to the FACC.

Demurrer

Cross-Defendants demur to all of the causes of action in the complaint. Cross-Defendants demur to the fourth, sixth and tenth causes of action because Cross-Complainants added these causes of action without leave of the court. The Court addresses the sixth and tenth causes of action in the motion to strike below.

Cross-Defendants also argue that the third cause of action as to the Yossefis should be sustained because no cause of action is stated by the Yossefis. Finally, Cross-Defendants demurrer to the fourth, fifth, seventh, ninth and tenth causes of action for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a legally recognized cause of action.

Sufficiency

COA 3: Negligence

Cross-Defendants argue that Cross-Complainants have still failed to state sufficient facts to state a negligence cause of action. The Court previously sustained the demurrer to this cause of action because Cross-Complainants had not alleged any facts to show that Cross-Defendants owed a duty of care to the Youssefi individual Cross-Complainants. Cross-Complainants have failed to file an opposition to the demurrer.

The Court finds that Cross-Complainants have failed to allege facts that show that Cross-Defendant Leevers owed a duty of care to Cross-Complainant Uriel and Nuriel Yossefi. Therefore, the demurrer on the third cause of action is sustained as to the Yossefi Cross-Complainants. Since there is no opposition to the demurrer, it is sustained without leave to amend.

COA 4 & 5: Interference Causes of Action

The fourth cause of action is labeled as intentional interference with prospective economic relationship. The fifth cause of action is labeled as negligent interference with prospective economic relationship.

Cross-Defendants first argue that the court did not grant leave to assert an intentional interference with prospective economic relationship. Comparing the presently alleged fourth cause of action with the previous fourth cause of action, the court finds that Cross-Complainants did not allege a new cause of action but merely changed the label of the cause of action and added allegations to support intentional interference with prospective economic relationship. The Court finds that Cross-Complainants have remedied the defect identified by the Court in its prior order as to the fourth cause of action.

However, the Court finds that Cross-Complainants did change their fifth cause of action. Previously, Cross-Complainants’ fifth cause of action was for intentional interference with contractual relations. Now, Cross-Complainants have changed their fifth cause of action to negligent interference with prospective economic relationship. The Court did not grant leave to change causes of action. The Court strikes this cause of action from the amended cross-complaint.

COA 7: Extortion

The Court previously sustained the demurrer to the extortion cause of action with leave to amend. The Court previously found that Cross-Complainants had not alleged facts that Cross-Defendants threatened criminal or civil prosecution. Cross-Defendants argue that this defect has not been cured. The Court agrees. Cross-Defendants have failed to allege facts that show that Cross-Defendants threatened criminal or civil prosecution. Therefore, the Court sustains the demurrer without leave to amend.

COA 9: Trade Libel

The Court previously sustained the demurrer to the trade libel cause of action with leave to amend. The trade libel claim was originally the tenth and last cause of action in the cross-complaint. The Court finds that Cross-Defendants have alleged sufficient facts to state a cause of action for trade libel. Therefore, the demurrer is overruled as to the ninth cause of action.

Motion to Strike

A. New causes of action added after the demurrer without first obtaining leave to amend

Cross-Defendants noticed two items in their notice of motion for motion to strike. Cross-Defendants seek to strike paragraph 100. Paragraph 100 is within the tenth cause of action. As to Item 2, Cross-Defendants seek to strike the fourth, sixth, and tenth causes of action as well as the associated prayers of relief in paragraphs 9, 10 and 15.

The motion to strike item 2 is granted in part and denied in part.

Here, Cross-Complainants added a new cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty (6th cause of action) and a new cause of action for unfair business practices (10th cause of action). The Court previously sustained without leave to amend the 6th cause of action for disgorgement and the 10th cause of action for injunctive relief. Plaintiffs or Cross-Complainants “may not amend the complaint to add a new cause of action without having obtained permission to do so, unless the new cause of action is within the scope of the order granting leave to amend. (See Patrick v. Alacer Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 995, 1015, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 642 [acknowledging rule but finding it inapplicable where new cause of action “directly responds” to trial court's reason for sustaining the demurrer].)” (Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1023.)

Cross-Complainants argue that the new causes of action respond directly to the Court’s reasoning in the first demurrer and thus come within the exception. However, these causes of action are not within the scope of the order because the Court did not grant leave to amend the sixth and tenth causes of action in the original cross-complaint because they were not causes of action. Despite this, Cross-Complainants added these two causes of action. Since the Court did not grant leave to amend new causes of action when ruling on the prior demurrer, the Court strikes the newly added causes of action in the cross-complaint. The motion to strike item 2 is granted as to all of the requested prayers of relief. The court did not grant leave to amend the prayer of relief to the fourth cause of action. The motion to strike item 2 is denied as to the fourth cause of action only. Since the motion to strike item 1 is related to the tenth cause of action, the motion to strike item 1 is MOOT.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where NETWORK DEPOSITION SERVICES INC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer FRIEDMAN MICHAEL E. ESQ.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer HART, WILLIAM R.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer FRIEDMAN STEVEN R.