This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/11/2019 at 01:17:20 (UTC).

MICHAEL-PERZOW CALVERT PARTNERSHIP ET AL VS MD INSIDER INC

Case Summary

On 01/18/2018 MICHAEL-PERZOW CALVERT PARTNERSHIP filed a Contract - Business lawsuit against MD INSIDER INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SUSAN BRYANT-DEASON. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0742

  • Filing Date:

    01/18/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Business

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

SUSAN BRYANT-DEASON

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

PERZOW ADAM

MICHAEL-PERZOW CALVERT PARTNERSHIP

Defendants, Respondents, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

MD INSIDER INC.

PERZOW ADAM

MICHAEL-PERZOW CALVERT PARTNERSHIP

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BOWSE MICHAEL A.

BOWSE MICHAEL ANDREW

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

CESTERO RICARDO P. ESQ.

SWEARINGEN JAMES LEONARD

CESTERO RICARDO P

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

CESTERO RICARDO P ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

6/4/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

6/6/2018: NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF RULING ON MOTION TO TRANSFER

7/3/2018: NOTICE OF RULING ON MOTION TO TRANSFER

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

7/10/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Minute Order

7/11/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

7/25/2018: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

Minute Order

8/2/2018: Minute Order

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO USE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER

8/2/2018: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO USE CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER

Minute Order

8/17/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

8/21/2018: NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANT''S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

8/29/2018: AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANT''S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

NOTICE OF ORDER RE RELATED CASES

8/30/2018: NOTICE OF ORDER RE RELATED CASES

Notice

10/4/2018: Notice

Notice

10/15/2018: Notice

Notice

10/15/2018: Notice

Order

10/30/2018: Order

Minute Order

10/30/2018: Minute Order

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

10/30/2018: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

47 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/10/2019
  • Notice of Ruling (ON DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT); Filed by MD Insider, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 57; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 57; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter (Jennifer Sebring CSR 13479)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike; Case Manageme...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by Michael-Perzow Calvert Partnership (Plaintiff); Adam Perzow (Plaintiff); MD Insider, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • Reply (in Support of Demurrer to Cross-complaint of Cross-defendant and Cross-complainant Adam Perzow); Filed by MD Insider, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2019
  • Opposition (to Demurrer to Cross-Complaint); Filed by Adam Perzow (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2019
  • Notice ( of continuance of case management conference); Filed by MD Insider, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 57; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
87 More Docket Entries
  • 02/13/2018
  • Opposition Document; Filed by Michael-Perzow Calvert Partnership (Plaintiff); Adam Perzow (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2018
  • NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2018
  • Notice of Related Case; Filed by MD Insider, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2018
  • NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE AND ORDER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2018
  • Notice of Status Conference filed; Filed by Michael-Perzow Calvert Partnership (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE AND ORDER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2018
  • Notice of Status Conference filed; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Michael-Perzow Calvert Partnership (Plaintiff); Adam Perzow (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE 17200; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC690742    Hearing Date: June 16, 2020    Dept: 1

Michael-Perzow Calvert Partnership et al v. MD Insider, Inc. (BC690742)

Nature of Proceedings: Hearing on Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Extend Deadline for Opposing Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment to Permit Discovery.

The court has read and considered Plaintiff MPC Partnership’s ex parte application to continue Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication and Defendant’s opposition thereto.

On April 10, 2020, Department 1 granted Plaintiff’s first ex parte application to continue Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication based upon Plaintiff’s showing that COVID-19 prevented Plaintiff from obtaining essential discovery. The court continued the motion from April 24, 2020 to July 1, 2020. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s opposition is presently due June 17, 2020.

Pursuant to CCP § 437c(h), “[i]f it appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, or both, that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented, the court shall deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, or make any other order as may be just. The application to continue the motion to obtain necessary discovery may also be made by ex parte motion at any time on or before the date the opposition response to the motion is due.” Even where an application fails to establish a mandatory right to a continuance pursuant to CCP § 437(c), the court exercises its discretion to determine whether a continuance is nonetheless warranted by a showing of good cause. (Cooksey v. Alexakis (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 246, 254); Hamilton v. Orange County Sheriff’s Dept. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 759; 765; Lerma v. County of Orange (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 709, 711-712.)

Plaintiff notes the parties agreed to extend the discovery and stay all discovery during the pendency of the stay at home orders, (Herbert Decl. Ex. N), and Plaintiff obtained additional counsel last week. In opposition, Defendant accuses Plaintiff of making “provably false statements” stating “the Application repeatedly asserts that the parties agreed to stay all discovery deadlines in the case until 25 days after Governor Newsom’s shutdown order expires. See e.g. Application, p.2:3-6. This is untrue. Although the parties discussed such an agreement, no agreement was ever reached as reflected by subsequent correspondence from MPC Partnership’s counsel, Michael Bowse.” (Opp. at 5.)

However, the declaration of Defendant’s counsel, Ricardo P. Cestero filed on April 9, 2020 in related lead case BC677121 to oppose the first continuance request in both BC677121 and this action expressly stated “On March 27, 2020, Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed me seeking an extension of the discovery cutoff in both cases due to Governor Newsom’s March 19, 2020 stay at home order. I, and my colleague James Swearingen, exchanged emails with Plaintiffs’ counsel and agreed to a stay of discovery.” (BC677121 April 9 Cestero Decl. ¶ 7.) In the current declaration, Mr. Cestero changes his declaration to state they “proposed an agreement to a stay of discovery.” (June 15 Cestero Decl. ¶ 10.)

Plaintiff also contends, without supporting evidence, that Plaintiff Adam Perzow, a partner in MPC Partnership is in Canada and unable to return to the United States to access documents. In light of the court’s prior finding and the parties’ agreement regarding discovery, the court finds sufficient basis to continue the motion a second time. In the supplemental declaration, Plaintiff’s counsel states Plaintiff “served written discovery, namely, a PMK notice, document requests and interrogatories. Each of those identify the discovery sought by plaintiff and to which plaintiff is entitled. Thus far, however, defendant has produced no documents or witnesses or made any other material disclosures in response.” (Herbert Decl. ¶ 5.)

For good cause shown, Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Extend Deadline for Opposing Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment to Permit Discovery is GRANTED. While Plaintiff requests the court continue the deadline for Plaintiff’s opposition to a date “25 days after Governor Newsom’s stay-at-home order is lifted but in no event sooner than August 12, 2020,” the court is inclined to set a hearing date. Additionally, in light of Defendant’s position, the parties are encouraged to complete necessary discovery, including via remote technology, and Plaintiff should be prepared to oppose the motion on the continued date.

The hearing on Defendant MD Insider, Inc.’s motion for summary adjudication, currently scheduled for July 1, 2020, is continued to September 16, 2020 at 2:00 P.M. in Department 57 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

Counsel for the moving party to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where INSIDER INC. A DELAWARE CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BOWSE MICHAEL ANDREW