On 03/07/2017 KATHY LOHR filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against JULIE MERRILL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are HOLLY E. KENDIG, BARBARA M. SCHEPER and ELAINE LU. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
HOLLY E. KENDIG
BARBARA M. SCHEPER
DOES 1 TO 50
HALLSTROM GRANT J. ESQ.
BERGER STEPHEN W. LAW OFFICES OF
BERGER STEPHEN W.
FRIDLEY SCOTT STEVEN ESQ.
MATHENA HOPE L
1/16/2018: PLAINTIFF LOHR'S NOTICE OF NO OPPOSITION TO LOHR'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL; BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT; AND RESCISSION OF ORAL CONTRACT AND RESTITUTION
2/21/2018: DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF LOHR'S 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL; ETC.
8/14/2018: PLAINTIFF LOHR'S NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION (LIS PENDENS) RECORDED 7/18/18
10/10/2018: Minute Order
10/10/2018: Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens
10/17/2018: Notice of Ruling
12/7/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice
5/28/2019: Ex Parte Application
11/14/2017: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING
5/26/2017: NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ETC
5/26/2017: DECLARATION OF ATTORNEY SCOTT FRIDLEY PURSUANT TO CCP 430.41, MEET AND CONFER PRIOR TO DEMURRER
6/16/2017: NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED HEARING ON DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
6/19/2017: NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Notice of Ruling; Filed by Kathy Lohr (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
Stipulation - No Order (to continue Final Status Conference and Court Trial dates and to extend discovery deadline for taking defendants depositions only)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (Pltf Lohr's Ex Parte Application to Compel Defts' Depositions; to Extend Discovery Deadline; etc.) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application Pltf Lohr's Ex Parte Applicat...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Order (Order Granting Pltf Lohr's Ex Parte Appl to Compel Defts' Depositions; Extend Discovery Deadline; etc.); Filed by Kathy Lohr (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Ex Parte Application (Pltf Lohr's Ex Parte Application to Compel Defts' Depositions; to Extend Discovery Deadline; etc.); Filed by Kathy Lohr (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:31 AM in Department 42, Holly E. Kendig, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens - Not Held - Continued - Court's MotionRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 42, Holly E. Kendig, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
DECLARATION OF ATTORNEY SCOTT FRIDLEY PURSUANT TO CCP 430.41, MEET AND CONFER PRIOR TO DEMURRERRead MoreRead Less
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL 2. BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT;ETC.Read MoreRead Less
First Amended Complaint; Filed by Kathy Lohr (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT - CIVILRead MoreRead Less
Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt; Filed by Kathy Lohr (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE & OSC RE PROOF 0F SERVICERead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR: 1. EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL ;ETCRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Kathy Lohr (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC653654 Hearing Date: October 31, 2019 Dept: 26
JULIE MERRELL, et al.,
Case No.: BC653654
Hearing Date: October 31, 2019
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITIONS AND APPOINT A REFEREE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
Moving Party: Plaintiff Kathy Lohr
Responding Party: None
The Court has considered the moving papers and notices.
On March 7, 2017, Plaintiff Kathy Lohr (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendants Julie Merrill and Erick Merrill (collectively “Defendants”).
On January 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, asserting causes of action for equitable estoppel, breach of oral contract, and breach of oral contract and restitution.
On February 21, 2018, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint.
On October 29, 2018, the court granted Defendants’ motion to expunge lis pendens.
C.C.P. §2025.450(a) provides, as follows: “ If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”
C.C.P. §2025.450(b) provides, as follows:
A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:
(2) , or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.
C.C.P. §2025.450(g)(1) provides, as follows: “If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”
C.C.P. §639(a) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “ When the parties do not consent, the court may, upon the written motion of any party, or of its own motion, appoint a referee in the following cases pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (b) of Section 640…(5) When the court in any pending action determines that it is necessary for the court to appoint a referee to hear and determine any and all discovery motions and disputes relevant to discovery in the action and to report findings and make a recommendation thereon.”
Plaintiff moves for orders compelling Defendants’ depositions, pursuant to C.C.P. §2025.450(a), and appointing a referee to preside over the depositions and contemporaneously rule on objections, pursuant to C.C.P. §§639(a) and 640(b). Plaintiff also requests an award of sanctions against Defendants and their attorneys, Scott Fridley, Esq. and the Fridley Law Firm, jointly and severally, pursuant to C.C.P. §2025.450(g)(1).
Plaintiff has submitted evidence showing Defendants filed a Chapter 7 Voluntary Bankruptcy Petition on October 24, 2019. (Notice (filed 10/28/19), Declaration of Berger, pgs. 3-4; Exhibit 9.) As conceded by Plaintiff, the case is stayed as to all further proceedings against Defendants, absent further action and/or permission of the bankruptcy court. (Notice (filed 10/28/19), Declaration of Berger, pg. 4.) (See Higgins v. Superior Court (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 973, 979-980 (“The filing of a voluntary chapter 7 bankruptcy petition ‘operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of—[¶] (1) the commencement or continuation … of a judicial … action or proceeding against the debtor.’ [Citations] ‘‘The automatic stay is self-executing and is effective upon filing the bankruptcy petition.’’ [Citations] Significantly, ‘the automatic stay of judicial proceedings against a debtor in bankruptcy does not apply to nondebtor codefendants.’ [Citations]”).)
Plaintiff, despite the bankruptcy filing, requests the court determine the issue of sanctions against Defendants’ counsel. However, the court will not consider Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendants’ counsel in light of the bankruptcy stay and the fact that there has been no ruling on the merits of Plaintiff’s motion. C.C.P. §2025.450(g)(1), on which Plaintiff relies, only provides for sanctions if a motion under C.C.P. §2025.450(a) is granted.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is placed off-calendar. The case is stayed as to Defendants, pursuant to the 10/24/19 Chapter 7 Voluntary Bankruptcy filing.
CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER
Plaintiff Kathy Lohr’s motion to compel the depositions of Defendants Julie Merrell and Eric Merrell and appoint a referee to preside over the depositions and request for sanctions is placed off-calendar. The case is stayed as to Defendants Julie Merrell and Eric Merrell, pursuant to their 10/24/19 Chapter 7 Voluntary Bankruptcy filing. All dates are vacated, including the Final Status Conference and trial dates. The parties are ordered to appear for a status conference regarding the status of the bankruptcy on January 15, 2020 at 8:30 am. If and when the stay is ultimately lifted, Plaintiff may contact the court to request that the instant motion be placed back on calendar.
Plaintiff to give notice and file proof of service of such.
DATED: October 31, 2019 ___________________________
Judge of the Superior Court
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases