This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/28/2017 at 08:40:44 (UTC).

LAURA SHAPIRO ET AL VS MORAD BEN NEMAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/07/2017 LAURA SHAPIRO filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MORAD BEN NEMAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ROBERT B. BROADBELT and DANIEL S. MURPHY. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3531

  • Filing Date:

    03/07/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ROBERT B. BROADBELT

DANIEL S. MURPHY

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

STIRES MICHAEL

SHAPIRO LAURA

MANDELKORN ALEXANDRA

WELCH ELISE

BUTLER STEPHANIE

CEPEDA JULIANNA

RABINOVICH YAKOV

LARSON ANNE

SILLIMAN SAMANTHA

TRINH NANCY

BROWN BLAKE

LOPERFIDO CORINNE

SCHRECK JENNA

KEMP OLIVIA

Defendants and Respondents

KHALILI MEHRAN PERRY

SKY HIGH INVESTMENTS COMPANY LLC

CALDERON NELSON

NEMAN SIMON

DOES 1 TO 100

NEMAN MORAD BEN

76 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

GREENBERG HAROLD ESQ.

LAW FIRM OF HAROLD GREENBERG

Defendant Attorney

FISHER DAVID R. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING ORDER OF THE COURT; ETC

11/29/2017: PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING ORDER OF THE COURT; ETC

Minute Order

12/4/2017: Minute Order

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER SUSTAINING DEMURRER WITHOUT LEAVE AND REQUEST TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

12/7/2017: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER SUSTAINING DEMURRER WITHOUT LEAVE AND REQUEST TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED ORDER

12/13/2017: OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED ORDER

DEFENDANTS MORAD BEN NEMAN, SKY HIGH INVESTMENTS COMPANY, LLC, SIMON NEMAN, NEMAN REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS AND MBN REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LLC'S NOTICE OF DEMURRERS AND DEMURRERS TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST

10/19/2017: DEFENDANTS MORAD BEN NEMAN, SKY HIGH INVESTMENTS COMPANY, LLC, SIMON NEMAN, NEMAN REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS AND MBN REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LLC'S NOTICE OF DEMURRERS AND DEMURRERS TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST

NOTICE OF ENTRY OR ORDER

10/13/2017: NOTICE OF ENTRY OR ORDER

Minute Order

9/29/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

4/21/2017: Minute Order

ORDER OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY

4/21/2017: ORDER OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

5/15/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

DECLARATION OF HEDY GHAVIDEL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' CLARIFICATION TO THE NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF DEFENDANTS? COUNSEL;ETC.

5/22/2017: DECLARATION OF HEDY GHAVIDEL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' CLARIFICATION TO THE NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF DEFENDANTS? COUNSEL;ETC.

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

5/26/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

Minute Order

6/30/2017: Minute Order

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

7/19/2017: DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

NOTICE OF ERRATA AND CORRECTION

7/26/2017: NOTICE OF ERRATA AND CORRECTION

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1. BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY; ETC

8/15/2017: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1. BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY; ETC

DEFENDANT'S CONSOLIDATED MOTION: (1) TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; ETC.

8/21/2017: DEFENDANT'S CONSOLIDATED MOTION: (1) TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; ETC.

DECLARATION OF JEFFREY R. KLEIN PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SECTION 430.41(A)(2)

9/13/2017: DECLARATION OF JEFFREY R. KLEIN PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SECTION 430.41(A)(2)

68 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/07/2017
  • Motion for an Order Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2017
  • Order (RE DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ) Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2017
  • Ord-Appt Apprv Rptr as Rptr protem Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2017
  • Reply/Response Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2017
  • Order (GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2017
  • Notice-Related Cases Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2017
  • Ord-Appt Apprv Rptr as Rptr protem Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2017
  • Opposition Document (TO EX PARTE APPLICATION ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2017
  • Ex-Parte Application (FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER STAYING DISCOVERY PENDING ORDER OF THE COURT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2017
  • Demurrer (12/4/17 ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
31 More Docket Entries
  • 04/21/2017
  • Declaration (OF HEDY GHAVIDEL ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2017
  • Declaration (OF HAROLD GREENBERG ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2017
  • Request for Judicial Notice Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2017
  • Opposition Document (TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2017
  • Notice of Ruling (OF THE TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE OF APRIL 12, 2017 ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2017
  • Order (ORDER TRANSFERRING PERSONAL INJURY (PI) CASE TO AN INDEPENDENT CALENDAR (IC) COURT ) Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2017
  • Notice of Trial Setting Conference Filed by Court Attendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2017
  • Notice-Related Cases (by Plaintiffs Laura Shapiro et al. The People of the State of California vs. Shy High Investments Company, LLC et al. (BC643427) ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2017
  • Summons Filed (on Plaintiffs Laura Shapiro et al.'s Complaint ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2017
  • Complaint (for Plaintiffs Laura Shapiro et al. ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC653531    Hearing Date: February 24, 2020    Dept: 32

laura shapiro, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MORAD BEN NEMAN, et. al.

Defendants.

Case No.: BC653531

Hearing Date: February 24, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion for an order permitting discovery of defendants’ financial condition

BACKGROUND

This is a landlord-tenant action brought by several tenants against Defendants Morad Ben Neman (“Neman”), Sky High Investments Company (“Sky High”), and Neman Real Estate Investments, LLC (“NREI”) (collectively, “Defendants”) concerning real property located at 931 and 937 East Pico Street, Los Angeles, CA 90021 (“Building”). In the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), Plaintiffs allege seventeen causes of action based on breach of the implied warranty of habitability, negligence, and various statutory violations.

On October 10, 2018, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend to the following causes of action: (10) constructive eviction, (12) abuse of process and frivolous filings, (17) breach of oral contract, and (24) fraud.

On October 30, 2018, Sky High cross-complained against Plaintiffs alleging causes of action for (1) equitable indemnity for solicitation; (2) equitable indemnity for nuisance; (3) equitable indemnity for subleasing; (4) breach of contract; (5) nuisance; and (6) negligence.

LEGAL STANDARD

Civil Code section 3294(a) authorizes an award of punitive damages “[i]n an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.”

“In order for a jury (and the reviewing court) to ascertain whether a punitive damages award is properly calibrated so as to inflict economic pain without financially ruining the defendant, it needs some evidence about the defendant’s financial condition and ability to pay the award.” (Soto v. BorgWarner Morse TEC Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 165, 192.) A plaintiff is precluded from conducting pretrial discovery of the defendant’s financial discovery unless the court enters an order permitting such discovery pursuant to Civil Code section 3295(c). That subdivision states in pertinent part: “Upon motion by the plaintiff supported by appropriate affidavits and after a hearing, if the court deems a hearing to be necessary, the court may at any time enter an order permitting the discovery otherwise prohibited by this subdivision if the court finds, on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented, that the plaintiff has established that there is a substantial probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim pursuant to Section 3294.”

DISCUSSION[1]

Plaintiffs move for an order permitting pretrial discovery of Defendants’ financial condition pursuant to Civil Code section 3295(c).

Defendants respond, and the Court agrees, that this motion must be denied because Plaintiffs have not supported this motion with admissible evidence. (See Civ. Code § 3295(c) (stating that motion must be “supported by appropriate affidavits”).) Specifically, Plaintiffs failed to authenticate the numerous exhibits submitted with its moving papers. (Evid. Code § 1401 (“Authentication of a writing is required before it may be received in evidence.”).) Without authentication, the Court cannot reasonably conclude that these documents are what Plaintiffs purport them to be.

In reply, Plaintiffs’ counsel submits a declaration averring that he has “reviewed all of the exhibits submitted with Plaintiffs’ Motion” and affirming “that all the exhibits submitted are true and correct copies of what they are presented to be and that each exhibit was reviewed to ensure authenticity before submission.” (Tey Supp. Decl. ¶ 4.) This authentication attempt is unavailing, procedurally and substantively. Procedurally, this authentication attempt arrives too late. Defendants had already opposed this motion based on a correct assessment that the exhibits were inadmissible. Based on this assessment, Defendants justifiably did not submit conflicting evidence. Allowing Plaintiffs to authenticate these exhibits on reply would preclude Defendants from opposing this motion on the merits. Substantively, this authentication attempt is too conclusory. Normally, a declarant authenticating exhibits identifies each exhibit and states that the attached copy is a true and correct copy of the same. This ensures that the declarant has thoroughly reviewed each item and understands what exhibits are being authenticated. Tey’s sweeping statement that more than twenty exhibits are “true and correct copies” fails to provide the Court with this necessary assurance.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ motion for an order permitting pretrial discovery of Defendants’ financial condition is DENIED.


[1] Defendants’ objections to the Tey Declaration are overruled. Defendants’ objections to the exhibits attached to the moving papers are sustained based on lack of authentication.

Case Number: BC653531    Hearing Date: December 09, 2019    Dept: 32

laura shapiro, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MORAD BEN NEMAN, et. al.

Defendants.

Case No.: BC653531

Hearing Date: December 9, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

plaintiff Santos’s motion TO COMPEL neman’s Further responses to (1) special interrogatories, set one and (2) requests for admission, set two

BACKGROUND

This is a landlord-tenant action brought by several tenants against Defendants Morad Ben Neman (“Neman”), Sky High Investments Company (“Sky High”), and Neman Real Estate Investments, LLC (“NREI”) (collectively, “Defendants”) concerning real property located at 931 and 937 East Pico Street, Los Angeles, CA 90021 (“Building”). In the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), Plaintiffs allege seventeen causes of action based on breach of the implied warranty of habitability, negligence, and various statutory violations.

On October 10, 2018, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend to the following causes of action: (10) constructive eviction; (12) abuse of process and frivolous filings; (17) breach of oral contract; and (24) fraud.

On October 30, 2018, Sky High cross-complained against Plaintiffs alleging causes of action for (1) equitable indemnity for solicitation; (2) equitable indemnity for nuisance; (3) equitable indemnity for subleasing; (4) breach of contract; (5) nuisance; and (6) negligence.

OBJECTIONS

Neman’s objections to the Tey Declaration are OVERRULED.

SI MOTION

Plaintiff Perry Santos (“Santos”) moves to compel Neman to provide further responses to Santos’s Special Interrogatories (“SI”), Set One, Nos. 1-3.

A. Legal Standard

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that (1) an answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete, (2) an exercise of the option to produce documents under CCP section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, or (3) an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (CCP § 2030.300(a).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections thereto. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (CCP § 2030.300(d).)

B. Discussion

SI No. 1 asks: “Have you ever been convicted of a criminal felony?” SI No. 2 asks: “If your response to Special Interrogatory No. 1 is in the affirmative, provide the details of when

each conviction occurred.” SI No. 3 asks: “If your response to Special Interrogatory No. 1 is in the affirmative, provide the court, case name, and case number of each conviction.” (Tey Decl. Ex. A.)

Neman responded to each of these interrogatories with the following objections: overbreadth, undue burden, and irrelevancy. (Tey Decl. Ex. C.) Neman bears the burden of justifying these objections. (Coy, supra, 58 Cal.2d at 220-221.)

Neman argues that good cause does not support these SIs because the information sought is equally available to Santos. The Court finds this argument unpersuasive for two reasons. First, the failure to assert a specific objection to a discovery request waives that particular objection. (See Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1125.) Neman did not assert this specific objection to these SIs so Neman waived this objection. Second, this objection is premised on the finding that the information sought “is as readily available to the [propounding party] as it is to the [responding party].” (Alpine Mut. Water Co. v. Superior Court for Ventura County (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 45, 54.) These are interrogatories requesting information about Neman’s history of felony convictions, the timing of those convictions, and court information about the convictions. While this information may be publicly available, such information is presumably more readily accessible to Neman than Santos.

Neman argues that this information is not reasonably calculated to lead the discovery of admissible evidence because the crime to which Neman plead guilty — financial structuring — is not a crime of moral turpitude and therefore not a valid ground for impeachment. The Court disagrees. The “moral turpitude” test is “not required in a civil case” in determining the relevancy of a prior felony conviction. (Robbins v. Wong (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 261, 274.) Hence, notwithstanding their designations as crimes of moral turpitude, these convictions may be relevant. (See also Form Interrogatory 2.8 (requesting party’s felony conviction information).) Further, adopting the “moral turpitude” test does not result in a different conclusion. Neman, who bears the burden of proof, has failed to demonstrate that all of his prior criminal convictions did not involve moral turpitude.

Neman has not substantiated any objections to these SIs.

Santos’s motion to compel further responses to SI, Set One, Nos. 1-3 is GRANTED.

RFA MOTION

Santos moves to compel Neman’s further responses to his Requests for Admission (“RFA”), Set Two, Nos. 1-2.

A. Legal Standard

On receipt of a response to requests for admission, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: (1) an answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete or (2) an objection to a particular request is without merit or too general. (CCP § 2033.290(a).)

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (CCP § 2033.290(d).)

B. Discussion

RFA No. 1 demands that Neman admit that he plead guilty to violations of (1) 18 U.S.C. section 371, (2) 26 USC section 7206(1), and (3) 26 USC section 7206(2) in a district court case entitled USA v. Morad Neman, Case No. LACR 14-521(A)-JAK. RFA No. 2 demands that Neman admit that he was convicted of the aforementioned felony offenses.

Neman responded to both RFAs with objections. Neman asserted, among other things, that the RFAs were incomplete and impermissibly compound in violation of CCP section 2033.060(d) and (f).

Neman’s objections to RFA No. 2 for incompleteness is well-taken. “Each request for admission shall be full and complete in and of itself.” (CCP § 2033.060(d) (emphasis added).) RFA No. 2 is not full and complete in and of itself because it incorporates by reference RFA No. 1.

Neman’s objection to both RFAs as being impermissibly compound is also well-taken. With an exception not relevant here, “[n]o request for admission shall contain subparts, or a compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive request….” (CCP § 2033.060(f).) While these requests could be read as demanding one response each — (1) an admittance or denial that Neman plead guilty to all three statutory violations and (2) an admittance or denial that Neman was convicted of all three statutory violations — Plaintiff makes clear in reply that this was not his intention: “[T]he request has been appropriately subdivided into parts which allow the responding party to address each part separately.” (Reply at 5.) This is impermissible under the plain statutory language of section 2033.060(f) which categorically prohibits subparts and conjunctive requests.[1]

Santos’s motion to compel further responses to RFA, Set Two, Nos. 1-2 is DENIED. This ruling does not affect Santos’s right to re-serve Neman with RFAs that demand the same admissions.

CONCLUSION

Santos’s motion to compel further responses to SI, Set One, Nos. 1-3 is GRANTED.

Santos’s motion to compel further responses to RFA, Set Two, Nos. 1-2 is DENIED.

The Court will not impose sanctions on either party or require Santos to pay additional filing fees because Santos was partially successful in bringing this motion.


[1] Neman’s objection that the RFAs impermissibly require reference to outside documents is meritless. Neman cites no legal authority in support of this proposition. Moreover, such a limitation would be at odds with the purpose of RFAs — “to set at rest triable issues so that they will not have to be tried.” (See City of Glendale v. Marcus Cable Associates, LLC (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 344, 353.)