This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 09:45:05 (UTC).

JOSEPH SAMEC VS GUY GRIFFITHE

Case Summary

On 12/21/2017 JOSEPH SAMEC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against GUY GRIFFITHE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are PETER A. HERNANDEZ and DUKES, ROBERT A.. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9896

  • Filing Date:

    12/21/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

PETER A. HERNANDEZ

DUKES, ROBERT A.

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

SAMEC JOSEPH

Defendants

BRIDGEGATE ENTERTAINMENT INC

BRIDGEGATE PICTURES

BRIDGEGATE ENTERTAINMENT INC.

BRIDGEGATE MANAGEMENT

GRIFFITHE GUY

Not Classified By Court

BRIDGEGATE PICTURES CORP.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

DARLING JOHN DUANE

HUNT ORTMANN PALFFY NIEVES LUBKA DARLING

Defendant Attorneys

ANNIGIAN JASON D

RICHARDS THOMAS K.

Not Classified By Court Attorney

GRANT DAVID

 

Court Documents

Objection

6/7/2019: Objection

Declaration

6/18/2019: Declaration

Notice of Motion

6/18/2019: Notice of Motion

Notice of Stay of Proceedings (Bankruptcy)

6/28/2019: Notice of Stay of Proceedings (Bankruptcy)

Opposition

7/10/2019: Opposition

Declaration

7/10/2019: Declaration

Reply

7/16/2019: Reply

Order

7/23/2019: Order

Minute Order

7/23/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

7/29/2019: Minute Order

Certificate of Mailing for

7/29/2019: Certificate of Mailing for

Summons

12/21/2017: Summons

Civil Case Cover Sheet

12/21/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint

12/21/2017: Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

12/21/2017: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Notice of Case Management Conference

12/22/2017: Notice of Case Management Conference

Legacy Document

1/31/2018: Legacy Document

Legacy Document

2/22/2018: Legacy Document

110 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/29/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department O at 400 Civic Center Plaza, Pomona, CA 91766; Status Conference Re: Bankruptcy

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/29/2019
  • Docketat 2:07 PM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Court Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/29/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Re: Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial;) of 07/29/2019); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/29/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re: Stipulation and Order to Continue Trial;)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/23/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Protective Order - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/23/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Protective Order;)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/23/2019
  • DocketOrder (Ruling on the Court's Tentative); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/16/2019
  • DocketReply (in Connection with Motion for Protective Order); Filed by BRIDGEGATE ENTERTAINMENT, INC. (Defendant); Bridgegate Management (Defendant); GUY GRIFFITHE (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/10/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (DECLARATION OF JOSEPH SAMEC RE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST BRIDGEGATE DEFENDANTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,805); Filed by JOSEPH SAMEC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/10/2019
  • DocketOpposition (PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST BRIDGEGATE DEFENDANTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,805; DECLARATION OF DUSTIN LOZANO); Filed by JOSEPH SAMEC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
169 More Docket Entries
  • 02/22/2018
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/31/2018
  • DocketRtn of Service of Summons & Compl

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/22/2017
  • DocketNotice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/21/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/21/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/21/2017
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/21/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by JOSEPH SAMEC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 12/21/2017
  • DocketComplaint Filed

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****9896    Hearing Date: January 11, 2021    Dept: O

Plaintiff Joseph Samec’s motion to adopt his proposed protective order is conditionally GRANTED with an “attorney eyes only” provision that would restrict Plaintiff access to the bank records of Defendant Guy Griffithe. Defendants are to file with the Court their proposed “attorney eyes only” provision within 10 days or waive their objections.

Plaintiff Joseph Samec (“Plaintiff”) moves the Court to adopt his version of a proposed protective order dated June 4, 2019 after Defendants Bridgegate Entertainment, Inc., Bridgegate Management, Bridgegate Pictures Corp., and Guy Griffithe (collectively “Defendants”) failed to comply with the court’s prior ruling on the matter.

The Court previously ruled on July 28, 2019 that a protective order be entered that includes an “attorney eyes only” provision that will restrict Plaintiff’s access to the bank records of Defendant Guy Griffithe. In its ruling, the Court reasoned that “[t]here is absolutely no good reason for Plaintiff to personally view Defendant’s bank account. Given Plaintiff’s past conduct, the Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated good cause for an attorney eye’s only protective order to protect Defendant ‘from unwarranted annoyance [and] embarrassment.’“

In the ruling, the Court also stated that Defendant was to submit a proposed protective order within 5 days of the hearing. However, it seems Defendant did not submit any proposed protective order in accordance with this Court’s ruling.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED with attorney eyes only provision added to Plaintiff’s proposed protective order. Because it is in Defendants’ interest to protect this information from Plaintiff’s eyes, the Court will order Defendants to file with the court their proposed “attorney eyes only” provision within 10 days. Should Defendants fail to do so, the court will deem that Defendants waived their concerns, and will adopt Plaintiff’s proposed protective order dated as-is.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where BRIDGEGATE PICTURES CORP. is a litigant