On 09/25/2017 JAROSLAV HORKY filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MARTINE HOLUB. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Chatsworth Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MELVIN D. SANDVIG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
MELVIN D. SANDVIG
HORREN S.R.O. A CZECHOSLOVAKIAN LIMITED..
BERNARD & BERNARD
LAW OFFICES OF R. GRACE RODRIGUEZ
BERNARD SHANE JACOB
9/25/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet
12/5/2017: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)
2/7/2018: Case Management Statement
2/22/2018: Minute Order
4/25/2018: Minute Order
5/4/2018: Case Management Statement
10/3/2018: Minute Order
2/6/2019: Case Management Statement
Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to Defendant Martine Holub's Cross-Complaint; Filed by JAROSLAV HORKY (Legacy Party); HORREN S.R.O., a Czech Republic Limited Liability Company Erroneously Sued As HORREN S.R.O. a Czechoslovakian Limited.. (Cross-Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Case Management Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by BERNARD & BERNARD (Attorney)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
at 3:19 PM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Nunc Pro Tunc OrderRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Case Management Statement; Filed by JAROSLAV HORKY (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by MARTINE HOLUB (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by MARTINE HOLUB (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
Cross-Compl fld - Summons Issued; Filed by MARTINE HOLUB (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by JAROSLAV HORKY (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
Notice; Filed by JAROSLAV HORKY (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice (of Case Management Conference); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by JAROSLAV HORKY (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: PC057999 Hearing Date: April 22, 2021 Dept: F47
Motion filed on 10/19/20.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Jaroslav Horky
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Martine Holub
RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant Martine Holub to provide responses to written discovery, appear at her deposition, compelling compliance with the California Code of Civil Procedure and for issue sanctions and monetary sanctions in the amount of $8,120.00 against Defendant Martine Holub and/or her attorney of record, Grace Rodriguez.
Specifically, Plaintiff requests the following issue sanctions:
(1) Defendant owes Plaintiff the 30% contingency fee pursuant to the value of the property;
(2) Defendant does not contest the contract between Defendant and Plaintiff;
(3) Defendant/Cross-Complainant does not allege any fraud, unfair business practices, or any other claim relating to the business relationship between Defendant/Cross-Complainant and Plaintiff.
RULING: The motion is placed off calendar.
Proof of service for a motion must be filed no later than five court days before the hearing date. See CRC 3.1300(c). Based on the 4/22/21 hearing date, a proof of service for the motion had to be filed by 4/15/21. No proof of service for the motion has been filed. No response to the motion has been filed to cure the defect. The Court also notes that the proof of service attached to Plaintiff’s Notice of Defendant’s Non-Opposition to the Motion, filed on 4/15/21, indicates that it was served by U.S. mail and electronic mail. However, no electronic service address is set forth.
Plaintiff is reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil. When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil (particularly the requirement to bookmark). See also CRC 3.1110(f)(4). Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers being rejected, matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.
Even if the service defects and foregoing technical defects did not exist, the motion fails.
Plaintiff fails to provide clear notice of the relief requested by way of the motion. “A notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for the issuance of the order.” CRC 3.1110(a). Here, the opening paragraph of the notice of motion indicates that Plaintiff is seeking “an order compelling responses to written Discovery, compelling Defendant Holub to appear at her deposition, compelling compliance with the California Code of Civil Procedure, and for issue sanctions and monetary sanctions in the amount of $8,120.00 against Defendants [sic] Martine Holub, and/or their attorney of record, Grace Rodriguez, Esq., jointly and severely [sic].”
Plaintiff fails to indicate in the opening paragraph what written discovery is at issue. From the remainder of the motion, it can be discerned that Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents and Requests for Admissions are at issue. As such, Plaintiff has improperly combined five motions into one motion. A separate motion, with a separate reservation, should have been filed as to the (1) Form Interrogatories, (2) Special Interrogatories, (3) Requests for Production of Documents, (4) Requests for Admissions and (5) Notice of Deposition at issue.
Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to establish that issue sanctions are appropriate without Defendant having first violated a court order with regard to the discovery at issue. See CCP 2030.290(c); CCP 2031.300(c).
Further, the declaration filed in support of the motion fails to support the monetary sanctions requested as required by CCP 2023.040. (See Bernard Decl.).
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases