Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/20/2019 at 02:29:35 (UTC).

JAROSLAV HORKY VS. MARTINE HOLUB, ET AL.

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7999

  • Filing Date:

    09/25/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Chatsworth Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MELVIN D. SANDVIG

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

HORKY JAROSLAV

HORREN S.R.O. A CZECHOSLOVAKIAN LIMITED..

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

HOLUB MARTINE

MEJZLIK JAN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

BERNARD & BERNARD

Defendant Attorney

LAW OFFICES OF R. GRACE RODRIGUEZ

Other Attorneys

BERNARD SHANE JACOB

 

Court Documents

Civil Case Cover Sheet

9/25/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Unknown

9/25/2017: Unknown

Summons

9/25/2017: Summons

Notice

9/25/2017: Notice

Unknown

10/6/2017: Unknown

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

12/5/2017: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Unknown

1/31/2018: Unknown

Case Management Statement

2/7/2018: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

2/22/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

2/28/2018: Unknown

Unknown

3/23/2018: Unknown

Unknown

4/18/2018: Unknown

Unknown

4/18/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

4/25/2018: Minute Order

Case Management Statement

5/4/2018: Case Management Statement

Unknown

5/23/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

10/3/2018: Minute Order

Case Management Statement

2/6/2019: Case Management Statement

21 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/03/2019
  • 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
  • 05/23/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • Minute Order ( (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by BERNARD & BERNARD (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2019
  • at 3:19 PM in Department F47, Melvin D. Sandvig, Presiding; Nunc Pro Tunc Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by JAROSLAV HORKY (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
25 More Docket Entries
  • 01/31/2018
  • Summons; Filed by MARTINE HOLUB (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • Answer; Filed by MARTINE HOLUB (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • Cross-Compl fld - Summons Issued; Filed by MARTINE HOLUB (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by JAROSLAV HORKY (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2017
  • Notice; Filed by JAROSLAV HORKY (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2017
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2017
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2017
  • Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2017
  • Notice (of Case Management Conference); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by JAROSLAV HORKY (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: PC057999    Hearing Date: April 22, 2021    Dept: F47

Dept. F-47

Date: 4/22/21

Case #PC057999

DISCOVERY MOTION

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.).

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer BERNARD SHANE JACOB